What does the measurements on a common $152 pair of speaker look like?

DanTheMan · « **Reply #40 on:** 18 Jul 2010, 07:02 pm »

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

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #41 on:** 18 Jul 2010, 10:06 pm »

What could you compare them to and why?

James Romeyn · « **Reply #42 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 12:57 am »

Quote from: DanTheMan on 7 Jul 2010, 07:57 am

...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!

DanTheMan · « **Reply #43 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 02:47 am »

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

DanTheMan · « **Reply #44 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 02:48 am »

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.

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.

James Romeyn · « **Reply #45 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:04 am »

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!

Thanks for the info.

JerryM · « **Reply #46 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:08 am »

Quote from: DanTheMan on 18 Jul 2010, 07:02 pm

It was listen, measure, listen more, measure again and save, post, buy, listen, measure new speakers, listen--and still listening.

Sweet.

Please keep posting your findings.

Still listening, too,
Jerry

DanTheMan · « **Reply #47 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 04:25 am »

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

ooheadsoo · « **Reply #48 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 02:03 pm »

Weren't these copies of the Mackies? When listening side by side, I preferred the Mackies hand down, but that was many years ago.

Danny Richie · « **Reply #49 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:04 pm »

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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.

jtwrace · « **Reply #50 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:06 pm »

Quote from: Danny on 19 Jul 2010, 03:04 pm

An important rule of thumb is that if it measures good but sounds bad, then it's still bad.

That's awesome!

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #51 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:14 pm »

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.

sts9fan · « **Reply #52 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:18 pm »

Quote

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?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #53 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:50 pm »

Quote

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.

DanTheMan · « **Reply #54 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:53 pm »

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

Danny Richie · « **Reply #55 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 03:59 pm »

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.

jtwrace · « **Reply #56 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 04:06 pm »

Quote from: DanTheMan on 19 Jul 2010, 03:53 pm

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?

Danny Richie · « **Reply #57 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 04:07 pm »

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.

wushuliu · « **Reply #58 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 05:08 pm »

Quote from: DanTheMan on 19 Jul 2010, 03:53 pm

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.

DanTheMan · « **Reply #59 on:** 19 Jul 2010, 05:10 pm »

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