AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => The Lab => Topic started by: DanTheMan on 6 Jul 2010, 08:15 pm
-
Here's the answer:
Polar response in 11.25 degree steps to 90 degrees gated to remove first reflection shown in impulse:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4749587721_bf6313804e_b.jpg)
overlaid impulses from above graph:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4115/4750230844_77668d46c0_b.jpg)
Average response taken from polar data:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4749587785_bafab51b4e_b.jpg)
OK, that's it. No more DIY for Dan. :nono: :oops:
Anyone know of anything that competes with these for a similar price?
Dan
-
I'm fairly certain I'm listening to a pair of these that arrived on my doorstep today. I purchased them so that I could rotate a different pair of speakers down to our off-grid cabin and they seemed like the best budget option.
For the price I haven't seen anything close. Very impressive.
-
Name? Link(s)?
-Jim
-
Measurements are one thing but what do they sound like?
-
Well it's clear some people are not too familiar with loudspeaker measurements or what function various parts of a loudspeaker perform. :duh: I thought we were in the lab. Thanks goodness some of you do. Those are not smoothed Behringer B2031P. Certainly incredible at this price point and better than anything I've measured at any price point. I wonder if anyone can show me better? Please do if you got them. I love an education esp a free one.
Dr. Geddes measured their active cousin with pretty much identical results. Look at the "preview data program" on his website and find Behringer in the menu. His comments on them are similar. You'll need to use internet explorer to see it.
For a comparison, here's what a famous internet DIY designer designed for this price point:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4750500208_64ec9d435e_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4750500124_368ff8d04c_b.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4749857527_5457e83cbe_b.jpg)
You'll notice the first reflection is a little later d/t the speakers height, but I set the gate the same for fair comparison.
Dan
-
How about some distortion testing?
-
Thanks for sharing, Dan. Those measurements certainly do look nice. The second speaker, surely a cone & dome, not so much.
Any chance you took some impedance measurements of the Behringer?
Regards,
John
-
I don't get it. These have been around for a while now. It's not like there's a new wave of speakers that all have extraordinary measurements making diy obsolete.
-
they are going to sound like crap, the crossover obviously can't power the high freq.... junk.!!!
its sending power elsewhere for some reason.
Try'em.
Nap. :thumb:
-
I wish I could do distortion tests well enough to post Face. The truth it though, loudspeaker distortion has to be pretty gross for it to be audible with music. That's not saying it can't be, just that it's usually not a problem for any decent driver used in the range it's designed for. For instance, I have a 4 inch FRer that just should ever play anything under 100Hz. It's distortion elements are only 20-30 dBs down and even though they're low order, I believe they're audible.
check out these tests for yourself:
http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt/default.html
Remember that this distortion is added to what your headphones or speakers are already putting out. Unfortunately after doing these tests you'll be able to hear distortion more easily. :icon_twisted: Practice makes perfect. And you'll understand that it's not typically a problem.
Wushuliu, it's not like they're new or make DIY obsolete. They definitely make DIY look less worth it unless it's for the love of it or you are more brilliant than any DIY guy up to this point that I know of. Those measurements are great by anyone's standards. If you don't believe me, measure your speakers. Just to get the quality of drivers that are in these, you'll spend more let alone all the other parts and not to mention the work.
Nullspace, definitely cone and dome on the second. Unfortunately I don't have a functioning impedance rig so no guarantee for tube amps. They aren't very efficient either so even if the impedance was good I don't know that I'd recommend them for typical tube amps.
Dan
-
Those look quite good. Can you say great surround speakers?
The second speakers you measure look dreadful. Those are likely to sound pretty forward, which some might think of as detailed.
-
Those look quite good. Can you say great surround speakers?
The second speakers you measure look dreadful. Those are likely to sound pretty forward, which some might think of as detailed.
They were obviously meticulously engineered to impress reviewers! :D
FWIW: They are galactically better than Bose. Bose fr drops rapidly at 13.5khz and doesn't come back.
-
Josh, we think alike!
Dan
-
Unfortunately I don't have a functioning impedance rig so no guarantee for tube amps. They aren't very efficient either so even if the impedance was good I don't know that I'd recommend them for typical tube amps.
They're listed as 89dB/1W@1M and nominally 4ohms -- I wouldn't have guessed that they would be a good match with the type of amps I mess around with.
I'm still curious, though, what the impedance looks like. If it's 4ohms nominal, does it drop below 2 at any point? Not all SS amps will like that. And, how about phase angles? I would think that 3-4ohms and -60degrees is going to necessitate an amp that has plenty of current available.
Regards,
John
-
For a comparison, here's what a famous internet DIY designer designed for this price point:
Sorry if I missed it, but which speakers are those?
-
Sorry if I missed it, but which speakers are those?
I think they are Behringer B2031P (Reply #5).
Steve
-
I think they are Behringer B2031P (Reply #5).
Steve
Looks like the speakers used to master all of Katy Perry's yelling....err cd's...
-
I think they are Behringer B2031P (Reply #5).
Steve
Thanks, but I meant what speakers were the second set of measurements (the DIY speakers) from?
-
Interesting .. while looking them up on behringer website, i saw that they make active subs as well ... street price is ~$200. Wonder if anyone has used it?
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/B2092A.aspx
-
Interesting .. while looking them up on behringer website, i saw that they make active subs as well ... street price is ~$200. Wonder if anyone has used it?
No, but a couple of interesting specs:
- Fixed crossover frequency of 85Hz @ 24dB/octave
- -3dB frequency is 32Hz
- 24.4"H X 12.8"W X 22.9"D - might make good speaker stands for some monitors (73 lbs)
Steve
-
As to avoid an internet war with someone I respect and hurt feelings of many others, I cannot tell what the second ones are. These are well received and appreciated by many of their owners/builders. I'd say if your going to do one of the available DIY designs around on the web, make sure you get measurements if accuracy is important to you. I'd say Zaph is pretty safe and his WG TMM looks more than interesting! His polar graph of them out to 60 degrees in 15 degree steps:
(http://www.zaphaudio.com/WaveguideTMM-measured-horizontaloffaxis-0-15-30-45-60.gif)
I knew something was off on the sound of those measured above, but couldn't peg it until I measured. I was expecting to see something totally different b/c of the design and designer. the directivity wasn't a surprise, just the response and the impulse. Life is full of surprises.
I never knew Behringer made an active sub in that line. Thanks for that. I'd sure like to see how those measure up. Unfortunately I can't do decent measurements for subs. For its response I could, but not excursion/distortion and max output stuff.
Many in the pro audio world talk about these Behringer monitors needing plenty of power and also their ability to take it. My HK 3390 makes them boogie and I don't know that's putting out all that much juice. Then again, I rarely listen louder than 80dB avg. Many in the pro world seem to think at least 130watts to make these happy. My receiver isn't rated that high so I doubt it's capable of it. Or maybe it is. It says 100watts into 4 Ohm +-42amps. I don't know if that's considered a lot of current or not?
Dan
-
The active version is intriguing at approx. $300 for a pair. Would be interesting running it from a single, balanced, volume-controlled source. I can see pairing these up with my EMU 0404 USB and using that setup with my computer. I love my current computer system, built around Diycable KIT61s driven by a B1 buffer into a UCD400 amp, but simplifiying it is an interesting proposition.
Nice find on the speakers!
Jim
-
Thanks Jim! I too use the EMU 0404 USB and love it. I run it into my receiver. Great minds must think alike. :thumb:
Dan
-
The active version has a "230-Watt Bi-amp module with enormous power reserve" built in. I also saw mention of being able to do 116db peaks. That's pretty solid for a speaker its size!
I might try to go hear them at Guitar Center, but I'm really thinking about buying a pair.
-Jim
-
The active version has a "230-Watt Bi-amp module with enormous power reserve" built in. I also saw mention of being able to do 116db peaks. That's pretty solid for a speaker its size!
The "230W Bi-amp" module is actually 80WRMS @ 4ohm and a 25WRMS @ 4ohm for the woofer and tweeter. Still good specs on paper for the money, but I'm not sure how the 230W spec was derived, as the peak power is specified at 320W/100W.
And the 116dB peak rating is for a pair of speakers.
Steve
-
The "230W Bi-amp" module is actually 80WRMS @ 4ohm and a 25WRMS @ 4ohm for the woofer and tweeter. Still good specs on paper for the money, but I'm not sure how the 230W spec was derived, as the peak power is specified at 320W/100W.
And the 116dB peak rating is for a pair of speakers.
Steve
Yes, the amplifier specs are somewhat bizarre. I still think its pretty decent in the context of a ~$300 per pair monitor.
-Jim
-
There has been reported reliability issues with Behringers internal amps. Many people say they pick up local radio stations with them.
Dan
-
Here's the vertical polars.
first is toward the woofer, on axis, 11.25 degrees off axis, and 22.5 degrees off axis:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4787297277_38219cccab_b.jpg)
Then toward the teeter, on axis, 11.25, 22.5, 33.75, and 45 degrees off axis:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4787297389_4e78e2cb34_b.jpg)
So if the tweeter's mounted on top, the mid point between the drivers should be at or a little below your ear ideally. This feature may actually make them well suited for a center channel.
Dan
-
A couple links with a lot of speaker measurements just so people can see how well a $152/pair delivered speaker can compete with whatever is out there fairly well:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=18
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/
These are no joke. I'm amazed. I'd sure like to see what soundstage and stereophile's protocol would do with these. Too bad I can't do everything these guys do.
Dan
-
OK, so I went a little wild today on making graphs. I used my own B2031P speakers and another's that just came in. Both are claimed to be matched pairs. Well, let's just see.
First "matched pair":
A) average response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1avg.jpg?t=1279406916)
B) average response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/2avg.jpg?t=1279406978)
A)polar response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1polar.jpg?t=1279407076)
B)polar response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/2polar.jpg?t=1279407164)
That's closer than any 2 I've built.
Next "matched pair"
C) avg response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/3avg-1.jpg?t=1279411360)
D) avg response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/4avg.jpg?t=1279407333)
C) polar response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/3polar.jpg?t=1279412000)
D) polar response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/4polar.jpg?t=1279407416)
Maybe not perfect, but you can tell they are making an earnest effort. Pretty impressive really.
Here's what one of these polar responses would look like with 1/3 octave smoothing:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/smoothedpolar.jpg?t=1279411605)
Dan
-
Yeah, but how do they sound? :wink:
-
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Dan :thumb:
-
.
-
Flat frequency response is pretty awesome to hear. I used my DEQX to produce a flat on my Yorkville Unitys and I love it.
-Jim
-
Here's more detail about how they sound :thumb::
A
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1imp.jpg?t=1279424746)
B
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/2imp.jpg?t=1279424834)
C
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/3imp.jpg?t=1279424874)
D
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/4imp.jpg?t=1279424907)
Actually how they sound mostly depends on the recording. They'll put that into your room very well compared to most.
Dan
-
Yeah, but how do they sound? :wink:
Good question. Back in the 90's I had a pair of speakers (Mission?) that measured very flat but they were so lifeless, dull and boring. IMO a flat response doesn't guarantee good or even acceptable sound.
-
Yeah, but how do they sound?
Good question. Back in the 90's I had a pair of speakers (Mission?) that measured very flat but they were so lifeless, dull and boring. IMO a flat response doesn't guarantee good or even acceptable sound.
So tell us Dan, how do they sound? Are they lifeless, dull and boring? Or full of life, captivating and exciting? I'm hoping it edges toward the latter. With an 8-3/4" cast frame woofer, 25 lb. LFE E1 MDF cabinet and only ~$150/pair?
Sounds incredible on paper.
Steve
-
.
-
Sorry gents. I'm just not the type to wax on about my opinion.
There's info in my signature and in http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092
After listening, I bought a pair.
Dan
-
Sorry gents. I'm just not the type to wax on about my opinion.
After listening, I bought a pair.
Dan
Well, by referring those who are asking how they sound to a book you are making clear that your opinion is that any speaker that measures this good, by the criteria that you deem important, must sound good, if not close to perfect.
So was it listen-buy-measure-post, or was there something else prior to the listening that predisposed you to think they would sound, well, good?
-
I wish I was smart enough to deem anything important. That's why I pointed to the book. It's chock full of perceptual studies.
It was listen, measure, listen more, measure again and save, post, buy, listen, measure new speakers, listen--and still listening.
Dan
-
What could you compare them to and why?
-
...better than anything I've measured at any price point...
Very interesting and helpful. It looks like you've solved most reader's searching, at the very least for secondary systems.
A context would be helpful for the above qualification. Such as listing the make/model/price of more costly speakers you have tested.
The consistency between pairs is, well just about impossible to believe at almost any price, much less $129 (the price at the B website). Is that pair or each?
They look awesome too. I gotta hear these things. I just don't know, even coming from Asia where they must be made, how you get a cast chassis mid bass and all the rest for that price.
My little instrument accessory seasons musical instruments. MSRP is $99, which seems high vs. the speakers. I suppose it's purely a numbers game.
Thanks!
-
Wind Chaser, There are some speakers that measure similarly here: soundstagenetwork.com and get very favorable reviews. Even win prizes. Just expect to pay more.
I could compare them to these:http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/amphion_argon2.htm
but not personally. Money no object, I'll take the Argon2s.
Hope that helps,
Dan
-
James, I don't really want to shed a negative light on other speakers I've measured. You'll see this earlier in the thread as well. It's just not for me. I actually posted these measurements here thinking I wouldn't cause a controversy and help some people buy quality speakers for their second system or dorm room, SS, etc... though I'm using them in the main system now. :o For a wide variety of speaker measurements, check out the link above and stereophile.com Stereophile's aren't as good in the polar domain d/t the normalization, but you can try to extrapolate that into something more useful from the central axis and they do a more in depth set of stuff. Of course if you use a fancy parametric EQ, you should be able to get something close what they show. I haven't measured any statement products, but what I've measured 4 other designs from internet companies ranging in price from about double for just raw drivers to about 4-5X the cost for drivers/parts or considerably more for finished speakers, but I've never measured any actually built by the designer. Measurements should be the same however. Some of these people I consider friends and don't want to run down what they do esp since they didn't build the product and thus they didn't verify that it is performing to specs. They have other beneficial things to offer in their pricing--service, customization, and max output for starters. I don't want to run anyone down.
Check out the Preview Data Program at http://www.gedlee.com/Loudspeakers.htm using Internet Explorer preferably on Windows 7. He's got cleaner measurements on the active version and the program is more insightful as to performance. It's kind of fun to play with.
The price I got was $152/pair. It's about the same to just buy a single.
-
That makes sense.
The specs are quite a jolt, so to speak! It seems like the raw materials should cost more than the MSRP. Don't they look cool? I wish my favorite receiver could drive them but extremely doubtful (as recommended by Earl, rated only to 8 Ohms, sold $11k worth of separates after buying it).
Do I just toss in the garbage these old unused low to mid-price drivers, etc? Well, the Focal T120FG was costly. But I am getting tired of tripping over this junk!
Too bad the Behringer are only built to ISO standards! :lol:
Thanks for the info.
-
It was listen, measure, listen more, measure again and save, post, buy, listen, measure new speakers, listen--and still listening.
Sweet. :beer:
Please keep posting your findings. :thumb:
Still listening, too,
Jerry
-
Thanks Gents, but I don't know what other data I'm capable of producing. I prefer the looks in person more than any photo I've seen online. The fit and finish seem great. I may eventually try some mods that are said to improve their performance. I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical about them d/t the level of current performance.
Thanks again,
Dan
-
Weren't these copies of the Mackies? When listening side by side, I preferred the Mackies hand down, but that was many years ago.
-
Hey guys,
I would advise caution in trying to determine how something sounds only by its measurements.
An important rule of thumb is that if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad.
I can make most speakers measure flat if I put enough components on them, but that does not mean that it will sound good. Even if that $152 speaker measures well, it could still be filled with electrolytic caps and iron core inductors, most in those price ranges are. And that stuff will really kill how it sounds.
The measurements will note a problem or show absence of a problem and that's all.
How about some distortion testing?
On distortion tests:
For one, there is no way of taking any accurate measurement of this outside of an anechoic chamber.
Secondly, of all the measurements one can take, it will tell you the least of how something will sound.
More telling by a large margin will be a spectral decay and impedance curves. Often make or break issues can be found here quite easily.
I would advise that a much more useful examination will involve listening tests and measurements. Here is an interesting listening comparison complete with measurements of everything. So you can see measured problems and how they may have been received by a group of well seasoned listeners.
http://www.stereomojo.com/Small%20Speaker%20Shootout%202007/SmallSpeakerShootout2007Part1.htm
I'd say Zaph is pretty safe and his WG TMM looks more than interesting!
I'd also advise caution in regards to this site. There is a lot if misleading information there.
-
An important rule of thumb is that if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad.
That's awesome! :lol:
-
Danny sums up pretty well. It reminds me of a debate I had many years ago with a recording engineer who was absolutely convinced his Crown amps were superior to my hotrodded James Bongiorno Sumo 9, which measured inferior to his amps. In less than 10 seconds of listening he discovered that old axiom, if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad! Still true today.
-
I'd also advise caution in regards to this site. There is a lot if misleading information there.
and he would caution others that you may have a bone to pick with him correct?
-
and he would caution others that you may have a bone to pick with him correct?
In one regard, yes. He has been bashing me for a long time now. I am in the other camp from him. I listen... And I believe that wire is NOT wire and that there are huge audible differences in things like that. I also hear differences in burn in effects. Capacitors all sound different, and all that stuff. And since I sell high end products like Sonicaps, then that makes me one of those "snake oil salesmen". So I become a target.
-
Danny, I have to admit I'm shocked by your response--and disappointed. I have to admit I thought you were WAY above this. It's getting tough here at audio circle. You just can't have an objective conversation or show any data. Even in the lab. Worst part is you are not allowed to defend science.
Dan
-
I would also like to take a minute to commend Dan for something.
He took vertical off axis measurements. Very good Dan!
This is very often over looked.
As most of us have figured out, we don't just hear the on axis output. We hear how the speaker interacts with the room. So off axis responses give us a clue as to what might be going on or what we might can expect in that regard.
Many designers and review magazines take horizontal off axis measurements, and that's great. Side wall reflections will be a direct reflection (for the most part) of the off axis response. Some rooms will have hot spots in some areas that will still disrupt even a perfect off axis horizontal response, but that is not something that is the fault of the speaker.
But we also hear the same reflections from the floor and ceiling, and most often than not the ceiling is completely untreated. So it is a very direct reflection of the speakers output.
So going vertical can tell you much. A speaker might be great to the left and right but a disaster in the vertical. Check the link that I posted before (above) and you will find measurements of a speaker that fit this description.
Interesting, I noticed not too long ago that John Atkinson of Sterophile has added vertical off axis measurements to his standard measurements as well.
-
You just can't have an objective conversation or show any data. Even in the lab. Worst part is you are not allowed to defend science.
Dan
Why and say's who?
-
Dan,
Just because someone advises caution in regards to reading to much into the measurements on how things sound is no reason to be offended. That's just prudent.
To the contrary I think its great that you are posting measurements. I think you should keep it up and build on it. I'd advise that you continue to look at the vertical off axis. There is good data there. But add a few more steps. Take a few more in varying amounts so you can get a better feel for where it is going just like you do with the horizontal off axis measurements. I'd also recommend that you add spectral decays and impedance plots. Those are big too.
Keep it up and don't let anything I add discourage you in any way.
-
Worst part is you are not allowed to defend science.
Dan
?
I don't think anyone here is anti-'science'. I don't think anyone's dismissed the data you've presented. Some are just asking well it measures great, but how do they sound. As Danny said, it's not as though someone can't design a flat response with drivers/components. They just choose not to. So I guess that's why I am confused about any 'controversy'. Those kind of measurements as far as I'm aware are not an expensive holy grail that speaker designers strive to reach. It's usually just the first step to getting the sound they want.
Even you said you 'listened, measured, listened again...'
Those Behringers seem like an excellent value. I don't think anyone disputed that.
I like this thread. I would just like to hear some actual impressions in addition to the data.
-
The reason you can't have an objective conversation is that as soon as you do post some data, people will interject with a comment that has nothing to do with what's been measured. There is a lot of perceptual science on what's heard with bias removed and what's not. We are not allowed to post this in the Lab. Therefor we are not allowed to state the science to back up what we know and why we do what we do, what's important and what's not or less so. This makes it difficult to have a conversation when you cannot defend your beliefs that are backed by scientific data.
The CSDs look great on the 2030P and FWIW, crossover components have been removed from the B2030P and are of high quality--heavy AWG iron core inductors and poly caps. I haven't looked inside the B2031P. Unfortunately CSDs more clearly show the types of resonances we have more trouble hearing and its usefulness has never been demonstrated.
The CSD and impulse response are the same data in a different view. B2031P certainly doesn't look bad. It's the most compact I've measured, but I've seen better for more money.
I'd advice everyone to go look at the measurements at stereo mojo. You'll see again what I mean about these speakers. Keep in mind that I'm going much further off axis and the Behringer graphs are not smoothed--except the one.
I don't see the prudence in advising people to not read too much into the measurements--that just propagates the "circle of confusion". It just contradicts over 25 years of research in psychoacoustics. I find it misleading. Why do you think I've tried so hard to not give my subjective opinion in this thread? --The statistics of one are useless especially after all the biases are thrown in. IOW, I don't want to mislead people. It may well be what you believe, but it's not backed by science. Measurements are most reliable thing they have to look at. Sighted opinions on loudspeakers have been demonstrated to be bias when it comes to the actual sound of the loudspeaker(as if that isn't obvious). Measurements have been shown to be far more reliable. I don't believe in magic and the lab should be free from its influence IMO. I hope you understand. Since one side is not allowed to state what it knows has been meaningfully demonstrated and the other side is allowed to state what it believes w/o useful demonstration, there's an obvious handicap in the discussion.
Impedance rig is in the plans. There are just too many things life requires at the moment.
Dan
-
Okay, I think I get where you are coming from about what we can and can't discuss in the lab.
For instance when you said:
crossover components have been removed from the B2030P and are of high quality--heavy AWG iron core inductors and poly caps.
Then your belief that they are of high quality would be opinion oriented and may differ from my opinion that iron core inductors are going to smear the signal especially in the mid range and to me would be low quality.
So in the lab we should say that it has iron core inductors and poly caps and leave it at that?
I still think it to be prudent to advise caution if trying to read any subjective preference for something based on limited measurements.
For instance. I had some speaker come in recently and some of the measurements showed problems. One problem ONLY showed up in an impedance sweep. He had a cavity resonance that made it's own little bump. It was clearly audible as well. Had I omitted that measurement then a serious audible problem might have been unknown to one not having heard the speaker.
The CSD and impulse response are the same data in a different view.
No not really. The impulse response doesn't tell you what frequency the resonance is at it just shows more output over time. So with that information only, you don't know where to look to fix the problem. The CSD also shows you amplitude at each frequency. The impulse response does not.
It may well be what you believe, but it's not backed by science. Measurements are most reliable thing they have to look at.
What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.
Measurements have been shown to be far more reliable. I don't believe in magic and the lab should be free from its influence IMO. I hope you understand.
I hope you understand that I completely agree. My point is that if looking at limited data one can't draw a real conclusion based on that limited data.
For instance: The measurements that you posted look great. I see no problems in those areas. But what if the speaker also had a cabinet resonance that was so bad that the speaker was virtually un-listenable? You just didn't measure for that. I might think that the smearing of an iron core inductor might kill it for me, but that wasn't measured for either. And if you don't have the means to measure the smearing caused by an iron core inductor does not mean it does not exist. Just like if you don't have the means to measure a cabinet resonance doesn't mean that it does not exist either.
I really do like what you are doing and still encourage you to keep posting measured data and then some. I would still advise caution in letting it sway what our subjective preferences might be. That is nothing wrong with that.
Unfortunately CSDs more clearly show the types of resonances we have more trouble hearing and its usefulness has never been demonstrated.
Is this again an example of what you are talking about that we can't talk about? I would argue that these resonances are easy to hear and it has been easily demonstrated in the past. When you have a woofer that has a ring to it, and that can easily be seen in a CSD, it is real easy to hear it.
Oh and I am in agreement with you on this too:
Sighted opinions on loudspeakers have been demonstrated to be bias when it comes to the actual sound of the loudspeaker(as if that isn't obvious).
Note that in the speaker comparison that I hosted, all speakers were hidden from view.
-
Weren't these copies of the Mackies? When listening side by side, I preferred the Mackies hand down, but that was many years ago.
These certainly look a lot like the older Mackies with the exception being the ports. The new line of Behringer monitors also mirrors the new Mackies. The older Mackies I've listened to didn't have the ports next to the tweeter which I think is a good idea because in the graphs I've taken below the ports, the off axis response is smoother.
Dan
-
Just so we are clear the title of this thread is:
"What does the measurements on a common $152 pair of speaker look like?".
Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise. Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it. I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different.
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs. It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings. Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps :sleep: without us data folks busting up your shindig.
Kris
-
Dan,
Could you do a couple of other measurements, like panel resonances and port response up to several kHz. Used to have them several years ago. Something bothered me in their sound, but did not have the measurement gear at that time. Of course, lot of thing changed in my system (ambiophonioc DSP changes) so maybe it was not the speaker.
-
Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise. Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it. I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different.
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs. It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings. Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps without us data folks busting up your shindig.
Fair enough. I don't want to incite a subjective verses objective camp debate.
However, if someone is going to recommend a site that is highly controversial in that regard, then I see no reason someone else like myself can't advise caution regarding it.
-
((((((((((((snipped for brevity)))))))))
Then your belief that they are of high quality would be opinion oriented and may differ from my opinion that iron core inductors are going to smear the signal especially in the mid range and to me would be low quality.
So in the lab we should say that it has iron core inductors and poly caps and leave it at that?
I just meant the inductors look well made--not loose or thin/cheap looking parts. If you can point me to a study that shows iron core inductors audible vs air core prior to saturation, I'd be totally fine with that your opinion on the subject has some merit. Nothing wrong with your revision, but imagine if I went through and scraped all opinion from your posts. This could quickly spiral and get ugly. I have made effort to avoid opinion in my posts.
I still think it to be prudent to advise caution if trying to read any subjective preference for something based on limited measurements.
You opinion is allowed, and I'd even agree that more measurements would be nice. You can see in other speakers that measure well in many ways in this price range that they do have measurably resonant problems--check out infinity's Primus 162. There enclosure is not as well made or as sufficiently damped and it is measurable. Unfortunately this is what I can do and they highly correlate with psychoacoustic studies. You're a lot safer buying with these measurements than you are by going to the store and listening. This has been demonstrated even though it seems counter intuitive.
It's like going to a music store and playing instruments. They always sound different when you bring them home and you can hear their tone so much better. Same goes for guitar amps--low level noise you can't hear in the store gets all too obvious at home. Too bad there isn't an objective way to know what instrument you are going to like when you are in a music store. Maybe that's the next thing for researchers to do. Where's Drs. Toole and Olive when you need them? Ha ha. (don't anyone get huffy and puffy over that comment. It is a joke.) I go to instrument shops and play for hours and hours, listening carefully through the noise, only to get home be irked. Can't tell you how many times this has happened. Unfortunate that I have only come home to a pleasant surprise once with cheap($200), old, used guitar that actually sounded even better when I got home. It is around 40 years old and the finish is a bit worn, but had a relatively new fret job and a real bone nut, compensated saddle and the best intonation I've played. Someone loved this thing and I can't blame them. Anyway, enough about my guitar.
For instance. I had some speaker come in recently and some of the measurements showed problems. One problem ONLY showed up in an impedance sweep. He had a cavity resonance that made it's own little bump. It was clearly audible as well. Had I omitted that measurement then a serious audible problem might have been unknown to one not having heard the speaker.
That has nothing to do with these speakers. Check out a pair for yourself--they are cheap. I'd be interested in your measurements. No offense, but your opinion, like SL's, would be too biased for anyone to base anything on.
No not really. The impulse response doesn't tell you what frequency the resonance is at it just shows more output over time. So with that information only, you don't know where to look to fix the problem. The CSD also shows you amplitude at each frequency. The impulse response does not.
The CSD is calculated from the impulse and yes it does show the resonances that have been demonstrated to be more difficult for our ears to hear--not that they are completely inaudible. I like looking at CSDs, but I don't have the software to generate a decent one. The impulse does contain all the same onformation, but it's gharder to read. Have you read the demonstrations by John K. and Zaph? Very informative if you remove the opinion from it.
What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.
For instance?
I hope you understand that I completely agree. My point is that if looking at limited data one can't draw a real conclusion based on that limited data.
No, but it's much better than MOST data available on speakers. I do mean much better esp when you consider psychoacoustics. Not perfect, just better than all but a very few.
For instance: The measurements that you posted look great. I see no problems in those areas. But what if the speaker also had a cabinet resonance that was so bad that the speaker was virtually un-listenable? You just didn't measure for that. I might think that the smearing of an iron core inductor might kill it for me, but that wasn't measured for either. And if you don't have the means to measure the smearing caused by an iron core inductor does not mean it does not exist. Just like if you don't have the means to measure a cabinet resonance doesn't mean that it does not exist either.
I actually do see problems in the areas I've measured. It's just that for the money there's nothing I know of in it's league. Can you show me a speaker that had no measurable resonance, but an audible one? I find this interesting.
I really do like what you are doing and still encourage you to keep posting measured data and then some. I would still advise caution in letting it sway what our subjective preferences might be. That is nothing wrong with that.
Thanks Danny. There's pretty much nothing you can do that won't sway your opinion. That is why I listened first at a friend's house and then at home--I didn't want the measurements to sway my opinion. My opinion hasn't been changed by anything, but it's been swayed by everything.
Is this again an example of what you are talking about that we can't talk about? I would argue that these resonances are easy to hear and it has been easily demonstrated in the past. When you have a woofer that has a ring to it, and that can easily be seen in a CSD, it is real easy to hear it.
It's just that studies we are not allowed to discuss disagree with your opinion. Ringing in woofers can be seen in the impulse and the frequency response as well esp when looked at from multiple axis. This has all been studied and documented as well.
Oh and I am in agreement with you on this too:
Note that in the speaker comparison that I hosted, all speakers were hidden from view.
Sounds like a good idea. I'm going to check out that comparison again as it's right up my alley.
Dan
-
Your caution had no qualifiers just a open ended warning that there are "a lot of misleading information there". How mysterious. It reads like a scare tactic.
The fact is the guy is respcted in the HOBBY. He has plently of cool designs to build and he has measured tons of drivers. So I think is input is valuable.
Honestly I do see a problem with a person in the industry attacking a hobbiest. Bigger fish to fry?
If you have specific issues post them in your fourm, this is not the place.
Lets bring this back on topic
-
Dan,
Could you do a couple of other measurements, like panel resonances and port response up to several kHz. Used to have them several years ago. Something bothered me in their sound, but did not have the measurement gear at that time. Of course, lot of thing changed in my system (ambiophonioc DSP changes) so maybe it was not the speaker.
I wish I did. These are not perfect, just a great bang for the buck. I'd rather have Genelecs by looking at the measurements, but I'd hate to file the divorce papers afterwards. I know the cabinets are very sturdy and heavy, but I would have placed the ports differently judging by what I've measured. Sure wold like to see the measurements on the Mackie siblings w/o ports next to the tweeter. I've heard them, but never measured.
Dan
-
Zaph is now in the industry as well, but yes, I'd love to keep personal stuff out of it. It would be great to discuss the measurements at hand and even how they compare to other designs.
Dan
-
...reminds me of a debate I had many years ago with a recording engineer who was absolutely convinced his Crown amps were superior to my hotrodded James Bongiorno Sumo 9, which measured inferior to his amps. In less than 10 seconds of listening he discovered that old axiom, if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad! Still true today.
I heard the 9+. I'd wager that even by today's standards (almost 30 years hence), a properly running Sumo 9 and/or 9+ would perform with the best. Bongiorno will go down in history as one of the very best, most elite designers of possibly two generations. He's still kicking butt and taking few prisoners.
-
Just so we are clear the title of this thread is:
"What does the measurements on a common $152 pair of speaker look like?".
Danny,
In a thread like this it is fantastic of you to share you expertise. Although I see no reason for you to bring your issues with Zaph or anyone else into it. I don't care if he thinks of you as a snakeoil salesman because you believe that caps sound different.
This thread is the improper venue to inject your subjective beliefs. It is possible to have conversations about measuments without warnings. Just like you can discuss the sound of wire and caps :sleep: without us data folks busting up your shindig.
Kris
I don't have trouble with Danny participating in this thread. If you read closely into the OP's post he talks about "famous internet DIY designer" so it really doesn't require much imagination to realize whom he's talking about. :duh: Danny has a perfect right to defend his POV even if it isn't just all numbers. Is the Lab just the domain of the "objectivists"? Actually, it seems that the OP doesn't have the full range of test instruments for a complete set of numbers as possible to make generalized statements.
-Roy
-
FWIW, I haven't measured any of Danny's speakers. Try not to assume too much.
You can refer to me by name.
Dan
-
If you can point me to a study that shows iron core inductors audible vs air core prior to saturation, I'd be totally fine with that your opinion on the subject has some merit.
Works like this. If I figure something out like that I may not want to document it at all. Some things that I have learned over the years that make clear and repeatable audible differences are things that I keep to myself. The competition can figure that stuff out on their own. In the case of air core verses iron core and the audible effects below saturation, that's a no brainer. Get yourself a good listening system and compare for yourself. Differences in foil verses wire wound is subtle, but in iron core, no problem. That is a big backward step.
You're a lot safer buying with these measurements than you are by going to the store and listening. This has been demonstrated even though it seems counter intuitive.
Wow, are you serious? You can know more about how a speaker sounds by looking at basic frequency responses then going to a store and listening to it yourself? Really? Are you talking about a store like Best Buy or something? I am not with you on that one. :scratch:
Check out a pair for yourself--they are cheap. I'd be interested in your measurements. No offense, but your opinion, like SL's, would be too biased for anyone to base anything on.
What? My opinion is too biased to base anything on? Where does that come from? You're in the minority there. Many companies bring to me or send me products all the time just for my feedback, amps, pre-amps, DAC's, speakers, you name it. Likewise many loudspeaker companies come to me for driver design, crossover design, product line design, etc. And I don't really mind being lumped in with SL. :D
What I believe is any result that is repeatable and conclusive regardless if measured by an instrument or the ear. One real problem is that most lack the tools to measure many things that result is clear, repeatable, and audible differences.
For instance?
Lots of things. Sonic characteristics of capacitors, wire, burn in effects, cryogenic treatment effects.
Can you show me a speaker that had no measurable resonance, but an audible one? I find this interesting.
I can show you resonances that you don't see in a simple frequency response that are clearly heard, but can also be seen in other types of measurements. You can't just go by the frequency response and impulse response and get it all. I had this same debate on a different forum once where several guys said that all they needed was the impulse response and frequency response and that they could tell where all the resonances were. So I posted that data on three different woofers and none of them would say where the resonances were. One guy took a guess at it but was not right. The rest were too afraid to embarrass themselves to take a shot at it.
Internal standing wave resonances and cabinet resonances are also easily heard but not measured unless you take the right measurement.
Ringing in woofers can be seen in the impulse and the frequency response
No, often NOT. Especially if it is well down in output. You might not even see it very well in a spectral decay until you put some power on it. Remember that a ringing woofer might not be a big deal at low power because you aren't exciting it much. The ringing is not just a measured order of magnitude, but has a time factor also. You can see the delayed ringing over a longer time period in the impulse response, but you still don't know at what frequency it is. So you really need to see the CSD.
If you read closely into the OP's post he talks about "famous internet DIY designer" so it really doesn't require much imagination to realize whom he's talking about. :duh: Danny has a perfect right to defend his POV even if it isn't just all numbers.
It's not mine, and I don't know who is is talking about. I never turn anything out that rough and have never designed a product for the $150 price point.
-
Yes Danny, your opinion, my opinion, SL's opinion(which is pretty favorable regarding this cheapo FWIW(don't get huffy and puffy, just an illustration of my sense of humor)), is meaningless under biased conditions. That's why I keep holding mine back--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests. What I believe or you believe we hear isn't particularly useful for anyone with an objective mind unless conditions are controlled. We all know this and there is no argument.
Read Dr. Olive's Blog for an understanding on why going and listening to a speaker in a store won't work as well as going by measurements. I used to have it in my signature, but apparently I no longer have one.
Looking at the measurements in the Stereo Mojo tests only confirms this speakers value. Thanks for that. It's something I hadn't seen before.
I'll still agree that a CSD is nice to have no matter how many times you say it. :wink: It just doesn't change the facts about what it shows. If you impulse response is compact, your CSD will be clean. Wavelet analysis should be even more clear as you can retain better time resolution in treble frequencies and better frequency resolution in the bass. It also more closely correlates with psychoacoustic studies deem more easily audible.
That resonant problems can be exacerbated by volume I'll totally agree to. Guitarists have been using this fact for decades.
Dan
-
You can't ever say that someone's opinion is meaningless, especially if you have no idea how much work and study they have put into the specific subject.
--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests.
Opinions formed without bases can have no value.
However, I have done extensive testing and comparisons on that stuff, even involving groups of people in blind listening tests under controlled listening tests. I have no motivation to publicize some of those findings. My views on many of those things go beyond opinions. They are well established facts for me and I use some of them to my advantage.
Looking at the measurements in the Stereo Mojo tests only confirms this speakers value. Thanks for that. It's something I hadn't seen before.
It may be a great value, but an impulse response, an on axis response and few off axis responses will only tell you if there are or are not problems in that area. It will NOT tell you how it sounds, and is by no means a better determining factor than going somewhere to hear the speaker for yourself.
If you impulse response is compact, your CSD will be clean.
This is true. However, if the impulse response is NOT clean, then where is the problem area? You can't get that from the impulse response.
-
Maybe you can't, but I just did. :wink: I'm just not an opinion believer. Opinions w/o backing evidence always seem dubious to me especially when someone has a financial stake in their stated opinion. You should post your results. It would change the world of audio and would be good for all if what you are claiming is true. Why make a claim your competitors can read and not back it up with evidence? You're showing your hand w/o playing your cards.
You may want to read some psychoacoustic studies. Much of what you say just do not hold up under scrutiny. Anyone can say whatever they want. It's an entirely different matter to demonstrate it in a way that's meaningful.
Actually it is possible to get that from the impulse response. Matter of fact, that's what the CSD does as I mentioned before. Truth is a wavelet would be far better than a CSD. I'll agree that it's difficult to decipher the impulse with any precision.
Dan
-
Yes Danny, your opinion, my opinion, SL's opinion(which is pretty favorable regarding this cheapo FWIW(don't get huffy and puffy, just an illustration of my sense of humor)), is meaningless under biased conditions. That's why I keep holding mine back--same goes for opinions on air core inductors, exotic cap, exotic wire, audiophile tweaks, etc.... all things that have neither been demonstrated or outright shut down under controlled, bias reduced tests. What I believe or you believe we hear isn't particularly useful for anyone with an objective mind unless conditions are controlled. We all know this and there is no argument.
Read Dr. Olive's Blog for an understanding on why going and listening to a speaker in a store won't work as well as going by measurements. I used to have it in my signature, but apparently I no longer have one.
Dan
I still maintain that you have misinterpreted the significance of bias in evaluating a speaker. If studies have proven that bias exists, is somewhat universal (i.e. bigger=better and pretty=better) and cannot be bypassed, even if one tries to, it makes no sense to remove bias from the evaluation of a loudspeaker, unless one plans to not know what speakers they bought or what their physical appearance is when they get them home.
It seems to me that the studies would indicate that aesthetics can have a tangible influence on perceptions and should be considered as part of the overall design. If we can't trust our senses and our brains to be objective, why not exploit our natural biases to actually improve what we hear rather than what we measure?
I guess for me it all comes down to what is "real" - the measurements or our perceptions.
Personally, my brain is also highly biased towards value, so I imagine I might actually prefer the Behringers to Genelecs, especially for listening in a home environment. I spent probably 6 or 7 years listening to Genelecs for 8-10 hours a day at work and not once did I ever wish I had them at home. Good for what they are, but not enjoyable - much like a broadcast video monitor will generally look worse than a consumer set, since it is designed to accurately show all of the flaws in a signal. In general, a less accurate consumer set provides a much more pleasing picture.
Jim C
-
Jim, I think that's best best argument for the subjectivists side. I actually brought it up about 6 months or so ago on this very board in the General Forum. They canned that thread d/t the ad hominem barrage that followed. I completely agree that if SQ is not what you are after, just pick whatever stuff you like. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't complain about the sound. It doesn't hurt that I even like the way these B2031Ps look. I actually like the way the Genelecs look even more. My wife likes Bose (the infamous Wave Radio!)and that's what we'd use if it were up to her. :duh: Good thing she doesn't like BeoLab. :lol:
Dan
-
You should post your results. It would change the world of audio and would be good for all if what you are claiming is true.
It won't. There will always be nay sayers that will claim that you didn't do this or do that to their satisfaction.
Why make a claim your competitors can read and not back it up with evidence? You're showing your hand w/o playing your cards.
Telling everyone in the world that there are audible differences between "whatever" doesn't give my competitors anything. They still have to go through everything that I have to find the answers, and I am not giving away the answers.
You are welcome to come hear for yourself if X or Y makes a difference anytime, just let me know when you'd like to visit. Otherwise you are on your own to figure it out for yourself.
Or we can just see if all this that I think I have learned is real or psycho acoustic or not by listening to what I have done and see if its great or not. If I really have figured something out and everyone says its great then I either really have or I am fooling everyone. I guess you might have to figure that out for yourself too.
Or if what you say is true then what we really need is just to look at the measured responses and the one that looks the best will sound the best. That would make it real easy. Then we can just all buy the same speaker.
You may want to read some psychoacoustic studies.
You guys spend too much time worrying about psycho acoustic studies and not enough time listening and comparing for yourselves. I know plenty enough about human perception, and was even certified in hypnosis (believe it or not).
-
It is true, no matter how much evidence is available, some people would never learn from it if it disagrees with their beliefs. We see this everyday.
You were a hypnotist! No wonder everyone loves your speakers. :icon_lol: (That's a joke. Not intended as any sort of serious statement. Just my sense of humor again.)
It's not what I say that's true. I'm just parroting the available Psychoacoustic research. It has been demonstrated many times and is well known by many industry professionals and hobbyists. We would not all end up buying the same speaker b/c there would still be various compromises, prices, and designs that do or do not fit our taste or room. However, the general quality of audio products would improve. I forgot to put this in this post originally b/c it seemed so obvious. I figured that since it was being refuted by a respected speaker designer, it must not be well understood.
Real and psychoacoustic are the same thing. I thought this was obvious as well.
Hmmm,
Dan
-
These certainly look a lot like the older Mackies with the exception being the ports. The new line of Behringer monitors also mirrors the new Mackies. The older Mackies I've listened to didn't have the ports next to the tweeter which I think is a good idea because in the graphs I've taken below the ports, the off axis response is smoother.
Dan
Yes, the mackies use passive radiators, which I assume Behringer left out to cut costs. From what I remember of these siblings, they're not bad :icon_surprised:
-
They may well not be the best horse in the world, but they're a runnin son of a gun--to paraphrase Charlie Patten. I'll put $152 on'em.
Their little brothers B2030P can be had for about $100.
Here's what I've found on them from Linaeum.com
(http://www.linaeum.com/productinfo/other/behringer_2030P/fr_fullrange_averaged_1M.gif)
(http://www.linaeum.com/productinfo/other/behringer_2030P/channelmatching.gif)
(http://www.linaeum.com/productinfo/other/behringer_2030P/fr_waterfall_detail_offaxis_1M.gif)
I don't know anything about the measuring conditions, but it looks like there is a lot of reflections in the polar graph.
Dan
-
OK, so I took some shots of the innards today. I'll get some stuff to do modifications and see if it makes a measurable difference. I'm going to try and generate some plots using the new REW so we can get a better look at resonance issues. The crossover looks like a minimalist WGed 2-way with just a cap and resistor in the tweeter with a 2nd order low pass. That's why you can see the woofer's break up creep into the tweeter's range of the response. The active version should do much better in this regard even though there's not a huge problem in the passive version. We see poly caps, an iron core inductor, and a wirewound resistor. The baffle is stout on the woofer half, but thinner on the tweeter. Enclosure damping is certainly less than I've ever used. That may be where we could best improve the design.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/DSC03715.jpg?t=1279747314)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/DSC03709.jpg?t=1279747386)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/DSC03713.jpg?t=1279747437)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/DSC03704.jpg?t=1279747492)
Dan
-
Hey DanTheMan,
You know, if you never have to listen to it (just keep it around for measuring) then why do anything?
If however, you want it to sound better, then I think I'd start with throwing away that crossover. There is nothing worse than an iron core inductor, a sand caste resistor and cheap (made in China) mylar caps. The caps could be polyester. I would really be surprised if the were polypropylene. Either way, they'd have to go.
-
These look pretty cool! I'll probably end up getting a pair for mixing when I start figuring out logic pro and the other production software on my mac.
As far as mods, someone should send a pair to Danny at GR and see what he thinks. I know he offered a couple mod packages for other inexpensive speakers that made nice improvements. These speakers look like much higher quality drivers too.
-
Haha!!! Danny posted right as I was posting this!
-
If you guys want to send me a pair, and cover the shipping back to you, then I'll measure them ever which way you can and let you know what I think (for free).
-
If you guys want to send me a pair, and cover the shipping back to you, then I'll measure them ever which way you can and let you know what I think (for free).
Now that's a no brainer to me...
-
If he has more negatives than positives to say though you'll get the 'he's biased' , etc. arguments. Actually, he'll probably get that anyway regardless.
Still, that's a great offer. The more info about these speakers the better.
-
If he has more negatives than positives to say though you'll get the 'he's biased' , etc. arguments. Actually, he'll probably get that anyway regardless.
Still, that's a great offer. The more info about these speakers the better.
It's not his opinion though...he's taking measurements in a proper Anechoic Chamber. Sure he'll (Danny) will give his opinion but it's just that. If nothing else, you get Anechoic Chamber measurements for shipping costs.
-
This thread just got interesting.
Anand.
-
It's not his opinion though...he's taking measurements in a proper Anechoic Chamber. Sure he'll (Danny) will give his opinion but it's just that. If nothing else, you get Anechoic Chamber measurements for shipping costs.
Did Danny recently build an anechoic chamber? :scratch:
-
I don't have my 24 foot long anechoic chamber any more. I sold that building and moved on.
I really don't miss it all that much though. I can do a semi anechoic measurement from as far away as 50" (usually 1 meter) using gated time windows and get the same response (no reflections) that I was getting in my chamber. And it's accurate down to around 200Hz.
I can already give you my opinion. :D They may be a good value for the money, but don't expect much more. The crossover parts quality ($4.00 worth maybe) is just what you'd expect for a speaker in that price range. Same goes for the box (unbraced MDF with a felt liner), binding posts, wire, etc.
It may have been well engineered but built to a price point. So there is likely a lot that can be done to take it to another level if somebody really wanted to.
Now, you have my opinion for whatever it's worth.
All that aside, my measurements have no opinions.
-
This thread just got interesting.
Very interesting... I'm amazed that Danny would even bother...
-
Just keep commercial offerings in your own circle. Pro bono
is cool here.
-
Hey DanTheMan,
You know, if you never have to listen to it (just keep it around for measuring) then why do anything?
If however, you want it to sound better, then I think I'd start with throwing away that crossover. There is nothing worse than an iron core inductor, a sand caste resistor and cheap (made in China) mylar caps. The caps could be polyester. I would really be surprised if the were polypropylene. Either way, they'd have to go.
Danny, I got to admit that I'm shocked by your opinion. OK, I was just kidding. Actually I still have a pair in their usual position and in operation as I type. One shouldn't assume. :duh: I just wanted to see the results of some recommended tweaks. Seems what most people recommend is well founded--improve internal damping material. I'll deal with acoustic issues first. The caps are mkt(Polyester) FWIW. Maybe I should have specified which poly. It just makes no difference to me. Call me a skeptic. The whole thing is made in China. That's why they are so inexpensive and a lot of great speakers are made there. The tolerances are obviously good. Just look at the test you pointed to earlier in this thread--you can do much worse for a whole lot more. The baffle is over an inch thick and the cabinet has a shelf brace. Sort of reminds me of the Parts Express cabinets. Too bad a pair of those this size cost more than a pair of these complete speakers--well engineered at that. Perhaps it's more like well reverse engineered.
Ok, I gotta run and get some magnets. My golf swing needs some tweaking. :green:
Dan
-
Just keep commercial offerings in your own circle. Pro bono is cool here.
No worries.
I have always had an open policy to measure and test anything for anybody free of charge. Typically I'd rather that they bring it in because I spend more time packaging and un-packaging than I do setting it up and running all the measurements. If it is big then you're bringing it in. If it is small enough then I don't mind it so much.
I have various companies bring stuff in every month or so. One company that has been in every show there was in the past year, and advertises pretty heavy in most magazines, was just here a few months ago. I usually can learn something from it too, even if it is just something about the people. Even if they don't purchase services from me, they might want to in the future.
If I measure and test something for a hobbyist then usually it is because they are having issues. I give them a list of problems, solutions, or recommendations. The value of that often gains their business.
So while it is a free service, what comes around goes around. So even if I am giving something away for free in a since I am still selling something of myself.
I am still okay in this circle with that I hope.
-
and he would caution others that you may have a bone to pick with him correct?
And please no baiting.
-Jim
-
Oh, I should just add that the binding posts are very sturdy, have a good clamping power, and what I'd consider high quality--there not jewelry quality and yes I've seen better for more money. Beats the heck out of anything in this price range. Same goes for the cabinet. I'm not sure my pictures show the cabinet innards well enough, but look above the crossover for bracing. Go to Best Buy or Wall Mart and check out the stuff in this price range. You'll see what I mean. I was just at BB and Fry's today. Man am I happy I found these. The enclosure damping however............ still looks on par with it's price range, just not above and beyond like the rest of the design. Fancy parts are fancy parts, but great engineering is priceless. :thumb:
That brings me to another point I just have to get off my chest and it's going to be opinionated: You gotta wonder why the listening rooms in the big box stores are set up so poorly and what processing they are using. Aren't they trying to sell speakers? I mean I get it, space constraints and all, but really! While I'm there listening, I just feel like there's no way these speakers sound this bad from some pretty well respected loudspeaker companies that now sell there. Something's got to be radically wrong, but the room doesn't look too bad. Speaker placement is bad however. Every time I'm in one of these places for something, I have to stop in and listen and then leave and wonder. Fortunately the local HiFi shop is much better. They even have some products in the same price range as BB and Fry's that look much nicer. The sound at the HiFi (Audio High) shop is also in a different league no matter what is being played. I bought my Receiver at Fry's. I knew better than to listen to it there--I would have never bought anything. At home, I'm absolutely satisfied. Some of the best money I've spent. I do wish the tuner picked up better............
Dan
-
OK, let's have a German, the home of Behringer, opinon:
Ein paar passive Nahfeldmonitore mit 8" Speakern für unter 200,- Euro zu finden wird schon schwierig, Behringer macht es jedoch mit den B2031 möglich. Der Sound ist aber sehr ausgewogen: Klare Höhen, satte Bässe und die Mitten stimmen auch, wobei nicht wie bei Hifi Lautsprechern der Sound klanglich beeinflusst (geschönt) wird, sondern exakt das wiedergegeben wird, was die Klangquelle hervorbringt. Der Frequenzgang ist wirklich sehr linear.
Ich nutzte das Monitorpaar sowohl zum Abhören, als auch für die Wiedergabe von CDs. Auch mein Digitalpiano klingt sehr überzeugend über die Truths. Wer noch keine hochwertige Studioendstufe besitzt, sollte evtl. zu den B2031A, die aktive Version der Monitore, greifen. Ansonsten eine echte Kaufempfehlung!
In English:
A pair passive Nearfield Monitors with 8 "speakers for under 200, - € is already difficult to find, Behringer makes it possible with the B2031. The sound is very well balanced: Clear highs, rich bass and the mids are also very good, although not as influenced by the sound of Hi-Fi stereo speakers (overemphasized), but exactly that is displayed, what the sound source produces. The frequency response is actually very linear.
I used the Monitorpaar both for listening, and for the playback of CDs. Even my Digital Piano sounds very convincing over the Truths. Who does not own a high-quality studio power amplifier should possibly resort to the B2031A , the active version of the monitors. Otherwise, a real buy recommendation!
I have just put a few corrections to make this Google translation readable in English.
From: http://www.thomann.de/de/behringer_b2031p_truth.htm#bewertung , all buyers who review are overall very satisfied with this speaker. :)
/Erling
-
No worries.
I have always had an open policy to measure and test anything for anybody free of charge. Typically I'd rather that they bring it in because I spend more time packaging and un-packaging than I do setting it up and running all the measurements. If it is big then you're bringing it in. If it is small enough then I don't mind it so much.
I have various companies bring stuff in every month or so. One company that has been in every show there was in the past year, and advertises pretty heavy in most magazines, was just here a few months ago. I usually can learn something from it too, even if it is just something about the people. Even if they don't purchase services from me, they might want to in the future.
If I measure and test something for a hobbyist then usually it is because they are having issues. I give them a list of problems, solutions, or recommendations. The value of that often gains their business.
So while it is a free service, what comes around goes around. So even if I am giving something away for free in a since I am still selling something of myself.
I am still okay in this circle with that I hope.
Sounds awsome. I look forward to your measurments if someone sends you a pair.
-
Dan,
Now that you have dissected the 2031P speaker. In the general interest would be for you to investigate the different speakers measurement data and publish them. If not familiar with impedance measurement I would recommend: http://sound.westhost.com/tsp.htm for measurement of TS-parameters. I recon that you can do frequency measurements with elements in box but also for each of them. That would be informative. Going as far as you have done I would say that not going the full way is not fair. Component values could be reveald and coils measured. For tweaks this is done all the time.
In general I am sympathetic to your and Earl Geddes approach seeking for impules response non resonans and constant directivity over a wide angle and for the full frequency range. That tells very much of a loudspeaker. As is also confirmed by the Toole and Olive research.
On the other side I can also recon some of Danny's objections. Like for a crossover at LP 2 kHz 4 ohm I would also go for a foil coil first and a decent MKP cap, you could do with a bipolar cap but then you should be prepared to exchange that every 5 years or so. The HP crossover seems to be approached by measurement and other information not reveald to get the whole thing working if 6 dB to 12 dB.
For most of the measurement the B2031P waveguide should be honored !
/Erling
-
Fancy parts are fancy parts, but great engineering is priceless.
Sounds like we need to do a little work here in the Lab to discover what makes a difference and what doesn't? It would involve some listening test though. I don't know if you guys are up for it or if making measurements with your ears are allowed here in the Lab. If not we can move the discussion to my circle.
I know there will be some apprehension about the thought of subjective evaluation or various parts, with all of the psycho acoustics involved and all... But if we can hear and confirm the differences between a cassette player and a CD player (pretty easy) then I think we can hear the differences in "fancy parts" and junk parts.
Anybody want to set up a comparison of two otherwise identical speakers (the ones we've been talking about) and have a small group over for listening.
My only suggestion is that whatever system is used is not bottle necked by a bunch of junk upstream. In other words not using a $99 CD player and a $200 receiver with lamp cord for wiring.
Anybody want to play (or listen) and see what we learn?
-
That's awesome! I would love to hear this...
-
Danny, there's a lot of research that already says you can't with caps and wire--well with well engineered parts. IOW if your tolerances are tight, no need for boutique according to research. I'd argue that it is possible to make something bad enough it could be heard. I thought I had done that in the past with some wire, sent it off to three forum members and one couldn't tell the difference, another one said he could but labeled it with positive attributes, and the last said it wasn't good but stated this long and wildly different set attributes during the burn in which he described in great detail. Of course this demonstration doesn't tell us much about what they actually heard. The brain interjected its insight with too much authority. We tried on other forums to get subjectivists to take a well designed test. It hasn't happened even after they professed it would many time, but they'd never show up to do it. Always an excuse. By all means set up a test, carry it out and post results on the web to demonstrate your beliefs. Please let me know if you do. FWIW, I'd be more than happy to participate, but alas not so happy as to pay for a flight. Check out my blog. There's a list of links there where you can see the results of some of these tests. It's far from complete, but I don't care enough to get exhaustive. I thought it would only hamper people's desire to look. The only things in question that I haven't seen a study on is an iron core inductor and the sand cast wire wound resistor. Testing with a tube amp may actually favor the iron core. :o Of course I'd advice not to test any speaker with a tube amp unless it was specifically designed for one. Another thing of interest would be not just a difference after sufficient sampling, but also a preference. Then you also have to question if there is either of these previous things, which is then more accurate? Of course that is easier to measure. If the parts measure the same, then the accuracy should be the same. Setting up the test to eliminate the outside variables isn't trivial and I'd approach it with care.
I should have known that if I tried to do something good for the hobbyist it would turn into a subjective/objective debate. :duh: Even in the Lab. Nowhere is safe, but where is that? (that's my sense of humor again) Too bad we can't post/perform meaningful listening tests in the Lab--well I guess you can do single blind, but they are less perfect and always subject to more scrutiny. Plus, why taunt the moderators? We've done enough of it already. They've got better things to do than babysit the forum members. It's tough when people present arguments that contradict research. I'd ask you, Danny, to just not do it. It just helps no one in reality. If all of your opinions were defensible, then I'd say by all means. Of course I also wouldn't be arguing with you now. For instance, I didn't have a problem with your statement about nonlinear distortion's importance not being a huge factor in loudspeaker design. I said the same thing earlier in this very thread and it's backed by research. Making claims that cannot be backed by any research just isn't what this thread was intended to be about.
Hey Scorp. Excellent commentary! I wish these wires weren't soldered on the woofer and crossover. I'd be more inclined to do further testing. I just don't want to desolder the leads attached to the woofer. Grant it there's not a lot of risk of damage, but enough that I don't want to do it right now. The speaker I'm modding isn't mine and the owner hasn't even gotten to hear them yet. Imagine getting that call, "dude, you know that speaker? Well yah, I broke it." :oops: If I damaged them, I'd just give him my set and then I'd be out of speakers. It's not a huge risk, just more than I want to take. I'd feel terrible. I really don't want to clip the wires either and I don't want to do it to my own set presently. The tweaks this would help provide just don't look like a good value on paper.
Dan
-
Dan, have you posted this info on Audioholics? It sounds like you've got your line drawn and would feel more comfortable discussing w/ like-minded people, and they certainly fit the bill. (being serious here).
-
Maybe if you spent more time listening and soldering you would be more inclined to de-solder for more testing and then listen. You might think that there's more to it then lamp cord wire and shitty components. I'm not in the spend more then needed but the caps that Danny is speaking of are def worth the money IMO. Yes, I've done back to back with my speakers that I built.
This thread is now one of the craziest things I've read on this forum...
-
This thread is now the craziest things I've read on this forum...
You must be new here.
Thanks Dan for posting all this information. What test gear do you use? I want to get some in the near future.
Kris
-
You must be new here.
Kris
Actually not. correction made above.
-
If you have any speaker measuring experience please share.
-
ok guys. put away the 'measuring' tape... :lol:
-
If you have any speaker measuring experience please share.
I've posted a bunch in the past. For this thread, there is no purpose.
Have fun! :thumb:
-
Ok, here is the deal. As someone who measures and listens this could be fun and learn something along the way.
I have sent Danny a pair of Behringer B2031P speakers to measure. This is a stock pair off the shelf. They are going directly to him from Amazon, no burn-in time. They should be at GR Research next week.
Once he is done, they can be used for listening sessions at his place. Once this is done will figure out something fun to do with them.
Who knows, maybe they will be part of my audio mad scientist demo system next year at LSAF! BWAHAHAHAHAH! :-)
Let the fun begin!
-
I'm using Room EQ Wizard which is free software from home theater shack. A calibrated EMU 0404 USB connected to a MacBook with Leopard. The Mic is a Dayton which was calibrated by Cross-Spectrum Labs. Doing your own measurements is ear opening. :o
Thanks HAL, That's very generous of you. His measurements will be cool to see. Did I just get lucky with the five I've seen and tested? Only time will tell.
Danny, what settings and mic distance do you use to generate your waterfall plots--that way we can see direct comparisons. I imported some measurements into the new REW today and should be able to make some plots.
Dan
-
Debates aside, does anyone want to learn something or not.
I would like to learn for sure. I've learned a lot just by handing around Audio Circle and reading different peoples posts. Even the ones that cause a stir have great info in them.
Thanks,
Robert
-
Oh Danny. What in the heck are you talking about? PM me with some research. I haven't seen anything that agrees with your opinion. I don't blindly follow anything. I have read some research. Do you live in the SF Bay Area? I mentioned I'd gladly take part in some research.
Otherwise do you want to discuss your waterfall settings?
Dan
-
Let's not get too snippy here, folks.
Remember, this is the lab. . . so, technical discussion is encouraged and desired.
Paul
-
If he has more negatives than positives to say though you'll get the 'he's biased' , etc. arguments. Actually, he'll probably get that anyway regardless.
Still, that's a great offer. The more info about these speakers the better.
I'll say he biased no matter his stated listening impressions. Just as I would be if I gave mine. So is SL and Soongsc. It's part of the game. The measurements have no brain and thus a far better assessment.
We have more info about these speakers than most on the market now, but more data is always a good thing.
Dan
-
.
-
Dan, I personally did a ton of research in these areas and I have given you the results. You don't have to believe my opinion or those of someone else that make claims otherwise. Whether you read it or are being told the results you are still believing in something. I am asking if you want to find out for yourself or not? Maybe we can set up listening impressions in the Bay area.
I use a 4ms time window for my waterfall settings. I use a 1 watt/1 meter standard as well.
-
Danny,
You are more then welcome!
My hope is that some folks will take on an A/B challenge with a redesigned XO and be able to switch between the two to hear any differences. Keeping the same cabinet and drivers with switching between the two XO's would be trick!
If it becomes a Cheap and Cheerful speaker then it would be fun. A possible gift for budding music lovers!
-
Going forward non technical posts in this thread will be trashed. So save your breath on +1ing what has already been said.
-
Dan,
Start yout time window at about 2.7ms or so and shut it down 6.7ms later. Be sure your speaker is at 39" away for that too or you'll miss it.
I also started a new thread in my circle about the posibility of doing a comparison in your area. We'll see if we can get you to see the light. :wink:
-
What demo is it that you want me to hear exactly?
Thanks for the test procedure for the CSD. It would be nice if we could get all AudioCircle members on the same wavelength as far as the measuring rig goes. It would help improve the usefulness of anything posted.
I bought some of the pink stuff(well actually yellow) and beefed up the cabinet lining. So I'll post the results of response and impulse changes. First will be prior to stuffing, the second will be after the stuffing.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1polar.jpg?t=1279849900)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1apolar.jpg?t=1279850007)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1imp.jpg?t=1279849932)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1aimp.jpg?t=1279850037)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1avg.jpg?t=1279849971)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1aavg.jpg?t=1279850066)
OK, nothing to really get excited about there. My guess is that the slight improvement in the treble has something to do with cabinet vibration or something.
I was bummed by the results, but I also wanted to test my diffraction theory with the ports next to the tweeter. So I got some cotton balls from the wife's "stuff" drawer and filled the front of those ports with white cotton balls! :o Well, the results are something to see:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/cottonpolar.jpg?t=1279850401)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/cottonimp.jpg?t=1279850425)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/cottonavg.jpg?t=1279850460)
No need for a side by side. This only makes me say that the Mackies should be great.
Dan
-
OK, let's also look at the cotton stuffed ports graph 1/3 oct smoothed vs. the added stuffing material's graph 1/3 octave smoothed:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/113smoothed.jpg?t=1279851447)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/1cotton3.jpg?t=1279851478)
Can you tell which is which?
Dan
-
Here's what happened on the low end. One line is with no fiberglass stuffing added, one is with additional fiberglass, and then the one that's about a dB higher is with the cotton added. Not that in all actuality it is not louder, it was just so the different lines wouldn't get confusing.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/basscompared.jpg?t=1279859964)
Dan
-
OK, this will be my only input on this food fight..........
I can already give you my opinion. :D They may be a good value for the money, but don't expect much more. The crossover parts quality ($4.00 worth maybe) is just what you'd expect for a speaker in that price range. Same goes for the box (unbraced MDF with a felt liner), binding posts, wire, etc.
It may have been well engineered but built to a price point. So there is likely a lot that can be done to take it to another level if somebody really wanted to.
Now, you have my opinion for whatever it's worth.
I see nothing to quibble about, in Danny's remarks. I'll be interested in seeing his measurements. So, until then..............ciao!
Pat
-
Check out the differences in the spectrographs before and after the cotton in the ports. Not that they tell us anything new, but a new look at an old problem/solution. Sorry about the extra noise in the ones with cotton. As you can see from the impulse, the first reflection is a bit sooner.
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/spectronoctnonaxis.jpg?t=1279910410)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/onaxiswithcottonspectro.jpg?t=1279910463)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/90withcottonspectro.jpg?t=1279910487)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/90spectronocotton.jpg?t=1279910513)
The 90 degree 3k resonance is striking. I wish they had better borrowed from the Mackie sibling.
Dan
-
Haha!!! Danny posted right as I was posting this!
Oops A little embarrassing looking :oops: :lol: Just to clarify, I was reading this thread the day before, and when I came back to it, I failed to realize Danny had already posted in it. I thought he had made his first post, just as I was suggesting someone send a set to GR.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=83233.msg810538#msg810538
Cary on...the discussion has gotten interesting though. Can't wait to see how these speakers end up. Maybe with a few bucks in better crossover parts they'll be pretty good. Maybe they are already? Might make a really nice inexpensive theater set up. Looks like they have more dynamic capability than most small speakers in the price range.
-
What program did the Spectrogram charts?
And what does it all mean?
-
The spectrogram came from REW Beta V5.
It's just another way of looking at the impulse response and frequency response. It's essentially FR over time. We want less delayed energy that's smooth with frequency.
Here's another look at the changes in bass response:
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz286/my_graphs/Behringer%20B2031P/2ftcottonvsprted.jpg?t=1279997247)
The line with the lower level is the one with the stuffed ports. Below 200-300Hz or so, bass really needs to be measured in room as it's the dominating factor there. My first graph is useless.
Dan
-
Hey guys,
I would advise caution in trying to determine how something sounds only by its measurements.
An important rule of thumb is that if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad.
You mean this? :D"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing." Daniel R. von Recklinghausen
-
Yes indeed Face. That's where the whole study of psychoacoustics comes into play.
There are couple good books out on the subject that anyone serious about the hobby should read.
Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction (Required IMO)
David Howard and Jamie Angus: Acoustics and Psychoacoustics
and
F. Alton Everest's Master Handbook of Acoustics
I personally have read through all of them yet--except Sound Reproduction, but it's clear they agree on a lot and from surprisingly different perspectives.
I know the Into to the Psychology of Hearing and Spacial Hearing have been recommended to me before.
FWIW,
Dan
-
This is your Brain on Music (http://www.YourBrainOnMusic.com/) by Daniel Leviton
As important as the Toole.
dave
-
Thanks for adding to the list Dave. It's a subject probably worth its own thread.
Books on audio.....
Dan
-
Hey,
So any new info info from GR on those monitor's he sent?
Was wondering what kind of measurements he got.
Thanks
-
He says he has measured them but has not posted anything. He did not like keeping on topic so he started a new thread that he can control in his own circle. I imagine he will not post the measurements here although it would be nice.
-
He says he has measured them but has not posted anything. He did not like keeping on topic so he started a new thread that he can control in his own circle. I imagine he will not post the measurements here although it would be nice.
Are these the unposted measurements you are referring to?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=83841.msg815737#msg815737
-
Yeah, I posted the measurements yesterday.
Fell free to contribute to the thread if you like.
-
Oops my bad. I recently put a bunch of circles
on my ignore list and forgot which ones.
-
sure