or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers - Page 5

post #121 of 820
Very interesting thread........
What's curious is why more speaker manufactures don't jump on producing High Sensitivity, High SPL (Output), Low Distortion Speakers.
Without those qualities Reference Level movie watching is extremely hard (and expensive) to achieve....

DreamCatcher
post #122 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

I don't intend for this to come of as lobbying for "my speaker", but here goes a thought that might be value to someone. It was a deciding factor in my choice.

The ONLY way we'll get better/correct data on speaker model lines or individual speakers is if people like you, who are an "expert" in that area, find anomalies, ask questions, suggest more speaker, and contribute resources.

So I really appreciate the contribution!

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony123 View Post

In looking at the scores associated with the price penalty, I got to thinking of an anomaly in the list. Since the Klipsch Heritage have been in production for roughly a half century, the used market is rich with fine examples. For instance, on about any given day you can find the La Scala for $500 per speaker. That would greatly change the price penalty for that model.

I might guess that 50% or more of buyers in that price range are considering the used market. Maybe it starts opening up too many variables? In any case, it would be a very real variable in making a purchasing decision.

Good point, if many people are buying used, and that changes the price points for some speakers versus others, we should add another column.

Hmm, "Google, can I integrate a Google Spreadsheet with Google Shopper?!"
post #123 of 820
Specs are very misleading sometimes and especially their max power ratings. One of the reasons I listen at reference(reference is not always 0 even when using a THX ultra 2 AVR) is because it really separates what speakers actually sound good that loud compared to speakers that should from the specs. Many become harsh, compressed, or distorted although they can take lots of power. I have heard less sensitive speakers sound better at reference than high sensitive speakers and of course vice versa. This is why testing in one's on room is crucial because after all we hear differently. I have heard very good drivers to great drivers compared to crap drivers. I will say it should not be judged just on drivers and how they measure outdoors.
post #124 of 820
Thread Starter 
Maybe I should remove the "low distortion" from the thread title?

I was thinking that by their very nature of being either high sens or power handling, they are lower distortion than other speakers played at the same high level.

But if the distortion amounts vary wildly, and there is no distortion spec (only a few speakers list that), then I shouldn't suggest they're low distortion.
post #125 of 820
post #126 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post

Maybe I should remove the "low distortion" from the thread title?

.

THIS is the crux of the matter, for me anyhow.

First off, congrats to Eyleron for attempting this daunting task. But after going through all the posts, I got a little tired about reading about sound levels per watt. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I feel I'm not getting enough sound level to give me what I want..... I crank up the volume. In doing so I am kind of hoping (maybe being even overly optimistic) that my amp is up to the task and will deliver more to the speakers without distorting the signal.

But I have yet to read speaker manufacturers proclaiming any values for distortion (THD or whatever, I'm not familiar with other ways of quantifying distorion). Therefore I applaud Theresa with her question about this crucial (for me) issue.

Like I said, if its not loud enough, I just turn up the volume. But i DO NOT want distortion. I have to confess that it is extremely unlikely that I would listen to things at reference level, if nobody is around to complain and I feel kind of rowdy I might crank music up to about -15dB. So I am definitely not trying to simulate the Deep Purple concerts of my youth - I actually find it more difficult to appreciate the program content when volume is approaching ear-splitting. Don't get me wrong, I like loud music, but for critical listening I really don't need reference levels. (My speakers, Yamaha NSX-6HX, don't really sound that nice until you supply them with a decent level, which is actually quite loud, so I don't really enjoy them much at low levels).

Basically, what I'm saying is that I won't buy a speaker based on the fact that it is really quite noisy at modest input levels. I don't really understand this fascination for dB/Watt. I want a speaker that delivers clean undistorted sound at a fairly wide range of sound levels. Moreover, I don't really care how many watts are required to drive that speaker, if I need a lot of power for that particular speaker, I'll buy a higher rated amp.

I would be really interested in reading speaker reviews which included some objective assessment of distorion (such as THD @ xxx watts input). This, coupled with a sensitivity, would give me a better idea of where to look if in the market for a loudspeaker.

Sounds like I've been ranting, but the thread is nonetheless really interesting.
post #127 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post

I would be really interested in reading speaker reviews which included some objective assessment of distorion (such as THD @ xxx watts input). This, coupled with a sensitivity, would give me a better idea of where to look if in the market for a loudspeaker.

So what the serious HT speaker crowd needs is someone who tests speakers like Josh Ricci tests subwoofers (who now does reviews for Audioholics). Click on any sub, then on the sub page, click on the measurements link at the bottom.
post #128 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post


THIS is the crux of the matter, for me anyhow.

First off, congrats to Eyleron for attempting this daunting task. But after going through all the posts, I got a little tired about reading about sound levels per watt. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but if I feel I'm not getting enough sound level to give me what I want..... I crank up the volume. In doing so I am kind of hoping (maybe being even overly optimistic) that my amp is up to the task and will deliver more to the speakers without distorting the signal.

But I have yet to read speaker manufacturers proclaiming any values for distortion (THD or whatever, I'm not familiar with other ways of quantifying distorion). Therefore I applaud Theresa with her question about this crucial (for me) issue.

Like I said, if its not loud enough, I just turn up the volume. But i DO NOT want distortion. I have to confess that it is extremely unlikely that I would listen to things at reference level, if nobody is around to complain and I feel kind of rowdy I might crank music up to about -15dB. So I am definitely not trying to simulate the Deep Purple concerts of my youth - I actually find it more difficult to appreciate the program content when volume is approaching ear-splitting. Don't get me wrong, I like loud music, but for critical listening I really don't need reference levels. (My speakers, Yamaha NSX-6HX, don't really sound that nice until you supply them with a decent level, which is actually quite loud, so I don't really enjoy them much at low levels).

Basically, what I'm saying is that I won't buy a speaker based on the fact that it is really quite noisy at modest input levels. I don't really understand this fascination for dB/Watt. I want a speaker that delivers clean undistorted sound at a fairly wide range of sound levels. Moreover, I don't really care how many watts are required to drive that speaker, if I need a lot of power for that particular speaker, I'll buy a higher rated amp.

I would be really interested in reading speaker reviews which included some objective assessment of distorion (such as THD @ xxx watts input). This, coupled with a sensitivity, would give me a better idea of where to look if in the market for a loudspeaker.

Sounds like I've been ranting, but the thread is nonetheless really interesting.

The whole reason for the wattage to volume level comparison is so that someone would know what amp to match with what speaker so that they can "just turn up the volume", so no it is not a fascination with DB/watt but actually an ok tool to match a speaker with an appropriate amplifier.
post #129 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

So what the serious HT speaker crowd needs is someone who tests speakers like Josh Ricci tests subwoofers (who now does reviews for Audioholics). Click on any sub, then on the sub page, click on the measurements link at the bottom.

Exactly. That's exactly what's needed. It's the testing that's the tough part. I sure wish I was that capable, but I'm not even close.

And, to be clear, when I mention Ricci above, it's only in reference to his convenient listing of tested performance metrics. Which are much better than my spec-compiling!

Still, there's a big black (or at least dark gray) hole in the community's understanding and acceptance of the need for compression-free, distortion-free performance at loud-ish listening levels. So if I've filled some of that void in a small way, I'm happy.
post #130 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by superedge88 View Post

The whole reason for the wattage to volume level comparison is so that someone would know what amp to match with what speaker so that they can "just turn up the volume", so no it is not a fascination with DB/watt but actually an ok tool to match a speaker with an appropriate amplifier.

You're right superedge, I was unfortunately painting all people quoting this spec with the same brush. Not my intention. I realize that a more efficient speaker would not have to be driven as hard to reach my preferred listening level. Consequently, I would sort of expect that if it was easily within its range of power handling there would be less chance of it distorting. I'm simply concerned that we rarely see any scientifically determined measurements of "distortion".

My post was kind of nasty because it infers that people who are looking for 100 dB/watt are more interested in breaking their neighbours eardrums, and cuoldn't care less about sound quality. I shouldn't really have spouted off like that because most people on this forum DO care about sound quality (otherwise they wouldn't even bother to read these posts.)

On a more subjective note, I have always found that the sound quality of speakers I liked the most were relatively hard to drive, and required quite a bit of power to hit that sweet spot. i.e. they were pretty inefficient. That is probably the main reason behind my aversion to the dB/Watt spec.

So, if I really liked the sound of a certain speaker, but it was not efficient, I would simply plan for a higher rated amp. I would NOT base my speaker choice on what my amp is capable of.
post #131 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post


You're right superedge, I was unfortunately painting all people quoting this spec with the same brush. Not my intention. I realize that a more efficient speaker would not have to be driven as hard to reach my preferred listening level. Consequently, I would sort of expect that if it was easily within its range of power handling there would be less chance of it distorting. I'm simply concerned that we rarely see any scientifically determined measurements of "distortion".

My post was kind of nasty because it infers that people who are looking for 100 dB/watt are more interested in breaking their neighbours eardrums, and cuoldn't care less about sound quality. I shouldn't really have spouted off like that because most people on this forum DO care about sound quality (otherwise they wouldn't even bother to read these posts.)

On a more subjective note, I have always found that the sound quality of speakers I liked the most were relatively hard to drive, and required quite a bit of power to hit that sweet spot. i.e. they were pretty inefficient. That is probably the main reason behind my aversion to the dB/Watt spec.

So, if I really liked the sound of a certain speaker, but it was not efficient, I would simply plan for a higher rated amp. I would NOT base my speaker choice on what my amp is capable of.

The problem is that most can't handle the power needed for high dynamic movie experiences. I wonder how many here think reference levels are just 0 on their MV. I measured mine and it was about 10 dB's too loud at 0 MV. Just watch a loud scene in a movie on a-weighting and see what it peaks at, mine was 115 dB's which is over reference so -10mv is my new reference level. Every movie will be different but it won't vary too much.
post #132 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post

I'm simply concerned that we rarely see any scientifically determined measurements of "distortion".

I recall I've come across some good stuff before about this, but I'll have to dig it up. I suspect some of the better educated forum members might have such resources more at hand.

Compression is a form of distortion, in that what goes in is not what comes out. The compression/distortion effects can be seen potentially from two sources: the amplifier and the speaker.

Your speaker is sensitive enough for the volume you're attempting as long as the power delivered to the speaker doesn't result in compression/distortion effects. At some percentage of its power handling these will appear. (Still waiting to hear others confirm a generalization of where this occurs). Your amp is powerful enough as long as the watts you're being asked to output doesn't send it into clipping.

The problem is, we over-drive speakers without realizing it, and we clip amplifiers without realizing it!

Barely Good Enough
With 86db sensitivity speakers, you can listen as -10dBfs, where your amp will be at 1 watt for 75db average level. To get the 20db dynamic peaks (95db) at that volume level your amp will be tasked with 100x the watts, or 100 watts. Assuming your amp really can output 100 watts with the necessary channels driven for that program material, and the speakers' power handling are several times higher than 100 watts, then I think there won't be compression/distortion.

Low Power-Handling Speakers
With speakers whose power handling is only 150 watts, I think you'll have distortion. (but I'd like to hear from others what they think the extent would be. Is the speaker-loafing distortion of 5% going to rise to 10%? 20? Will you still get the 95db peaks?)

Too Weak an Amp
If we instead want to listen to -5dBfs, that's only 5dB higher. But this would require 340 watts! While I've heard of amps that can provide 1dB to 3dB of peak power (dynamic headroom), the length of time may well be small for repeated or sustained peaks of a few seconds. The capacitors are quickly drained. 3dB would only get you to 200 watts, anyway. You're going to be clipping, where you're producing square waves that are twice as hard on the speakers. The sound is strained, harsh, grainy, and it makes people say, "Wow, that's LOUD (uncomfortable)!" Instead of the ideal, "Wow, that's powerful, and incredible!"

I'm sure you can imagine an in-between case, where the amp was really 100 watts two channels driven, but 70 watts three channels driven. And it'll be even a little less to the front three, when the surrounds are also probably being somewhat powered.

Some great info here: http://www.rocketroberts.com/techart/powerart_a.htm

"Too Loud", or Too Distorted?
It may sound crazy to want -5db, but in a large room, or an acoustically treated room, it's not as loud as you think, and if we've heard clean dynamics before, we'd want them in our own room too! The absorbtion sucks up more of the reflected sound, and that lack of reflections lowers the overall level versus an untreated room.

When it's not distorted, people are surprised at how effortless it sounds. If you take a great singer who only does well at low volumes, and ask her to belt out operatic levels, she'll sound terrible. "Too loud!" you tell her. But really, it's that you don't like how she sounds.

When grand pianos get up to 109dB (for brief peak periods), it's not unreasonable to ask for peaks approaching that in our own rooms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post

So, if I really liked the sound of a certain speaker, but it was not efficient, I would simply plan for a higher rated amp. I would NOT base my speaker choice on what my amp is capable of.

But, depending on the speaker, room, and our occasional listening desires, that amp might have to be 5,000 or 4,000 watts!
post #133 of 820
Eyleron, I certainly haven't earned the "expert" title.

I, too, wanted to thank you for your efforts. It should be a handy tool!
post #134 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bukiwhitey View Post

Can you add the Yamaha DSR 112's.

http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global...ifications.jsp

Okay, I've added the DSR 112, but this might be my biggest guess ever.

It's an active speaker. Thus, I look to sensitivity of individual drivers (I've mainly based the chart on low frequency, as that's usually the limiting factor in sensitivity), the SPL output, and the watts of the amps (again, low frequency).

http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global...ries/index.jsp

Unfortunately, Yamaha hates us. They don't qualify the max SPL 134dB 1 m:
  • as anechoic, half-space, etc.
  • is with one speaker or two.
  • if their 1300 watts total for LF and HF is continuous, program, or peak power.

If I assume their 134db was with peak watts, and the 1300 they list is program (so peak is 2600), and that they'd use the total watts of both amps, and it's anechoic, then I can assume the sensitivity is 100. But in the spreadsheet I'm just using the LF amp (which is what I did elsewhere).

If someone has a different interpretation of their specs, or knows of a review, or can contact the company for clarification, let me know!
post #135 of 820
Would you be willing to put all your main explanatory text in the first post? I just ordered the Paradigm Center 3 for my secondary TV watching system, and I'm still finding it difficult to understand everything in your table. I've been through all the posts, but it would make it easier if the info was all in one place.

And I still don't know how "Review/Sentiment" is scored. You write:

Review/Sentiment, Price
Along with all the above, I included price ranking. I tried to weight the pricing so that it didn't matter as much if a speaker was $100 or $200, because at that low level the speaker is suspect anyway being so cheap. This is due to the economics even in an internet-direct model, where there are minimum baseline costs. ie, if a speaker is listed at $30 (and is supposedly high performance), there's probably something wrong.

However, price is something that is more important in the $200-$2,000 range. Above that, it'd less of an issue, and I didn't want to subtract massive points just because a fantastic speaker was $4,000, and to an even lesser extent if it's $16,000. Thus, the ratio of price increase versus points subtracted is not linear.

I also have a column for Review/Sentiment. Some speakers don't get reviewed that much, but there might be a powerful tide of fans. For instance, even if there was never a professional review of the JTR Triple 8, I'd still give that speaker a maximum rating for sentiment. I don't ever read anyone say, "Oh, yeah, JTR, that's okay if you want to get loud, but the imaging is sucky and its freq response is all over the place." Rather, it sounds like people rank it with the best of the best. Some speakers have a mixed following. Some have very little data. Some have negative.


So, what is 1? Good?

Anyways, I suspect it will be decent, but I am not under any illusions about it replacing the Studio series centers. I just bought it because it was probably a good value.
post #136 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post

The topic includes "low distortion," so what is the thd on these various speakers?

I'll quote Theresa again, because this is something really missing from reviews and sales & datasheet materials.

Manufacturers "say" without qualifying factors that their speaker can handle 1000 watts peak, 250 watts continuous, etc. But was this the point that the speaker failed catastrophically? Or where the distortion rose to an objectionable level?

This is akin to having an amplifier spec of "100 watts" without knowing the frequency range, whether it was RMS, and tested for how many hours, with what level of THD!

Soundstage posted THD measurements using the anechoic room at the NRC. Here's the Paradigm Monitor 5: http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/mea...digm_monitor5/

But they only test at 90dB, and if distortion is too low, they test again at 95db.

That's nice, but that's like reporting, "The manufacturer reported that the car's top speed is 140mph. We found that the car did well at 90mph."

I don't expect reviewers to take a speaker to failure-- wait, yes I do! If you buy the speaker, and want to do a great review, then test the speaker by raising input power until distortion reaches 1%, 10%, 50%, etc., and report where it failed catastrophically. If you can't break the speaker, at least go far enough that we know how much it can take at certain levels of distortion.

Secrets of Home Theater & Hi Fi test at 100dB. This is better. But it's a ways away from 105db at a typical listening position. http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/home-...r.html?start=3.

This Klipsch RF 82 II speaker, if I assume a 95dB sensitivity instead of the stated 98dB, when tested at 100dB output would require 3 watts of power (if they'd tested anechoically). 10 watts would get it to 105dB. 135 watts for 105dB @ 12 feet. How does this speaker perform differently when fed 135 watts versus 3 watts? I wanna know!
post #137 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post

Would you be willing to put all your main explanatory text in the first post?

Good suggestion. I've edited the first post I think once to go back in and put more explanation, but I should revise and add to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post

And I still don't know how "Review/Sentiment" is scored.

You know, I don't know either. This is the most subjective of measurements, which is why I've been sorting by the "Performance" score lately, which most heavily weights dB output, sensitivity, and power handling.

Again, this doesn't mean these speakers are the best, even for a narrow class of application. We don't know distortion, aesthetics, off-axis response, and we're not scoring for low freq extension, penalizing for truncating the last 4kHz the way many cinema speakers do, etc.

But back to Review/Sentiment. 3 is high, -3 would be very low. If I left it blank it was because I didn't know. A 1 meant it was mentioned here and there, like the Mackie C200. A 2, fairly well regarded [for high-output theaters], like the CHT Sho-10 or Elemental Designs new horn speakers.

Thinking about this, I don't know if I can stay abreast of all of this. It's pretty easy to say that a JTR Triple 8 or a Seaton Catalyst is a "3." The ones and twos are more difficult. I haven't researched any of the recent speakers I've added. Maybe with help this would be easier. Or I can not use the column for now until the gaps are filled in.

One thing that drove me to do this is that you'd have a stage speaker that no one knows about (for home theater, midfield listening), that has great specs. If one scores on performance, or a little more subjectively on "value," do you think this speaker should be score as high as a JTR Triple 8? By giving the little-known speaker a "0" or "1", and the well-regarded speaker a "3", I was able to give points to the latter speaker.

This addresses situations where someone new to the scene might ask, "I'm trying to decide between the Peavey speaker and the JTR. Are they just as good for my theater?"

What do you think? Would you find it difficult to do some searching on AVS, and look for some pro reviews, to categorize these into a few simple "bins"?
post #138 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post

Would you be willing to put all your main explanatory text in the first post? I just ordered the Paradigm Center 3 for my secondary TV watching system...Anyways, I suspect it will be decent, but I am not under any illusions about it replacing the Studio series centers. I just bought it because it was probably a good value.

I think you bought the best center speaker for good value in their currently-produced lineup. I've tried to steer people to the Center 3 instead of the Center 1. It looks like you'd be fine at -10dBfs (if your receiver is calibrated such that "0" is reference level, then you should turn the volume no higher than -10 for films...although TV channels and Netflix might use different levels).

Paradigm drastically reduced this line's sensitivity. The CC-390, for instance, was 94db, instead of the Center 3's 90.

The Studio CC-490's sensitivity is 87, with no more power handling.

The Signature C1 is 85!

I dunno. As I posted in the Paradigm Owners Thread: Paradigm must hate dynamic theaters.
post #139 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post

I think you bought the best center speaker for good value in their currently-produced lineup. I've tried to steer people to the Center 3 instead of the Center 1. It looks like you'd be fine at -10dBfs (if your receiver is calibrated such that "0" is reference level, then you should turn the volume no higher than -10 for films...although TV channels and Netflix might use different levels).

Paradigm drastically reduced this line's sensitivity. The CC-390, for instance, was 94db, instead of the Center 3's 90.

The Studio CC-490's sensitivity is 87, with no more power handling.

The Signature C1 is 85!

I dunno. As I posted in the Paradigm Owners Thread: Paradigm must hate dynamic theaters.

The older CCs were often quite sensitive, but they were also ginormous. The CC-390 was 38.98 in x 8.46 in x 14.61 in. So, thirty-nine inches long and fifteen inches deep! Even the CC-290 was 26.73 in x 7.80 in x 11.42 in, which is actually still quite a bit bigger than the Center 3.

One of the reasons I didn't immedately update my blown centre channel (CC-150, which was undersized for the room) last year was because the higher end Paradigm centres were simply physically too large for my AV cabinet. The CC-290 was too wide, and the CC-390 was far, far too wide, and a little too deep as well.
post #140 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuGsArEtAsTy View Post

The older CCs were often quite sensitive, but they were also ginormous.

Good point. I see why its size wouldn't work for many people.

Still, let's look at the Mini Monitor, where the size didn't change but the sensitivity did:
Version 6 Mini Monitor
Weight: 17lbs
Sensitivity: 89 anechoic
Freq Response -2dB: 72 Hz -20 kHz

Version 7 Mini Monitor
Weight: 17lbs
Sensitivity: 87 anechoic
Freq Response -2dB: 75 Hz -22 kHz

And, they even lost some extension going to v7.

But, like the center speakers, looking at Monitor 7 and 11, I see their weight and size decreased as well to v7.

This snippet from a review of version 6 is interesting:
Quote:


For the Monitor series, Paradigm has made a major departure from their other speaker lines with their SuperDrive technology. The Monitors are set apart from most conventional box speakers by their very high efficiency, high output, and low distortion. In fact, the in-room (as opposed to anechoic) sensitivity of 97dB/W/m claimed for the Monitor 11 and CC-390 is similar to the sensitivities of horn speakers. Even the sensitivity of the ADP-390 surround is a still-respectable 90dB/W/m.

Audioholics says that the center was reduced to fit modern furniture better.
So it sounds like they went backwards in size for centers to fit furniture. Smaller/lighter in the towers for some reason, and even when they didn't drop in size or weight (as in the Mini's), the drivers are less sensitive. They gained in some areas, but lost in the ability to output peak dynamics at higher volume settings / well-treated rooms.
post #141 of 820
Another post to keep this interesting topic alive (and which addresses among other things the elusive subject of distortion)(thanks again contributors).

In the seventies I was looking for a decent set of speakers and was lucky to stumble on a shop which also had some Yamaha NS-1000M's along with a bunch of other hi-fidelity speakers. After a bunch of comparisons, I selected the Yamahas, which in later years came to be considered as classics. They weren't even too expensive if I recollect. In the owner's manual the info shown in the .jpg was included. Notice that there info about 2nd and 3rd harmonics distortion as well as info about sound dispersion. (kind of hard to read, I hijacked this info after googling and stumbled on some site called sportsbil.com) and the scan of the old manual isn't with the greatest resolution. Also interesting were the impedance characteristics at different frequencies. Although I lack the knowledge to fully interpret the info, I think this is the kind of info we'd be interested in to evaluate distortion. A shame that this kind of info seems hard to find these days.

A final plug for Yamaha (I own 3 pairs of floorstanders, the NS-1000M, NS-300 budget speakers, and NS-6HX for my HT and couldn't be happier with them). Judging by the info presented on the old NS-1000M's I think it would be safe to say that Yamaha are serious about their speakers, and try to get things right. The sound might not appeal to everybody, but they should be considered by anybody in the market for speakers. Definitely worth a listen.

Crap!!!! I just realized I can't upload the .jpg. Can't seem to paste it either. Will investigate and try to post later.
post #142 of 820
Ok found the old spec sheet for the NS-1000M.
LL
post #143 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrio View Post

Ok found the old spec sheet for the NS-1000M.

Heh "Squawker".
post #144 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post

Heh "Squawker".

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny too. Don't know if some people at the time were actually using that term, or if Yamaha was being cute. Maybe in future posts I will refer to midrange as squawkers and see what reactions I get.

Sort of: "Please help me, my squawkers are making an odd squawking noise"

And the reply: "Don't worry, that's what squawkers do. They squawk."

On the graph wasn't it interesting to see the directional patterns? Good documentation. I remember also my documentation for the Nakamichi pre-amp and power amp were very detailed. The pre-amp had some signal generators too with about 3 frequencies + pink noise. It was all quite handy for tuning up your system in the days before our fancy MCAAC, etc. I still wish that modern amps had some buiilt in test tone generators.
post #145 of 820
Thread Starter 
I added a couple speakers to the spreadsheet:
The JBL MRX512M is a pro sound stage / monitor speaker that's come up in a few AVS discussions.

Seaton Sound's (the famous Mark Seaton) Spark LCR active speaker.
post #146 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DreamCatcher View Post

Very interesting thread........
What's curious is why more speaker manufactures don't jump on producing High Sensitivity, High SPL (Output), Low Distortion Speakers.
Without those qualities Reference Level movie watching is extremely hard (and expensive) to achieve....

DreamCatcher

This would be a good question to ask of manufacturers.
"Where's the speaker that will give me the 20dB peaks from my listening position without power compression at X dBFS?"

Compression starts at some small fraction of the speaker's power handling (lately I suspect this is actually a fraction of continuous or program watts, not peak watts as I've been using). This may well be 20 watts for many speakers!

So, if you want to listen at -10 dBFS, and don't want to go above 20 watts, you need a 94 db sensitive speaker (anechoic, assuming a treated room). I just don't see that many speakers that sensitive. Why not? And you'll need more for greater distances.

One theory is that extension sells better than sensitivity. It looks better to say, "Look, our -3dB point is 45 Hz!" I feel it is silly to only produce such speakers, if the majority of the theaters will have subwoofers crossed over higher than that! Is this only a consumer education issue?

We need more >= 8" woofer designs that are geared for sensitivity, and either domes that can take the power and have good off-axis response (and probably use in treated rooms), or waveguide compression drivers.

Or maybe the 6.5" woofers are sufficient when there are two per cabinet?

What other reasons do y'all think these speakers are hard to find?
post #147 of 820
Thread Starter 
I've referred to showing the fraction of watts where power compression starts, and I've mentioned this was something I was unsure about.

I finally found the statement by MJG100 here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&postcount=107

Quote:


Since compression takes place at 1/8 to 1/10 power rating. Then having a problem with compression all has to do with the design of the speaker and how loud and long you play it. Lets say you have a treated HT room and you are listening at 13 feet. If the speaker is 89db sensitive and only rated at 100 watts then compression can start as low as 10 watts of input. That means the speaker can start to compress at 99db of output at one meter. At 4 meters (13') you can lose 12db in a treated room. So at the listening position the speaker can be compressing when playing 87db. Not very loud at all. With compression taking another 3 to 6db, you can be reduced to a maximum SPL at the listening position of 81 to 84db. A system like this would not have any dynamics. This is why I would never use a low sensitivity, low power handling speaker in my dedicated (treated) room.

So, I've included a column showing dB at 1/8 peak watts (where power compression starts).
I'm not sure if MJG100 was referring to Continuous Watts or Program Watts. Because he used a fairly low number of "100" in his example, I suspect he meant Continuous Watts. Uh oh, this doesn't bode well!

Using even 1/8th of Continuous Watts handling, which is 1/4 Peak Watts, means that the dB reached will be 6dB even lower!

Now, another question I have is: do we see that same power compression when talking about peaks? I suspect not. One source of compression is the voice coil heating up and gaining resistance, requiring more power from the amp, which heats it up more, etc. in vicious cycle. In a transient peak, you don't have so much time to heat up the voice coil. So, what are the compression effects for transient peaks?

So, I'm led back in a circle to where I started. Maybe power compression starts at 1/10 to 1/8 power, for whatever your program is and what you're measuring.
  • Thus, if you're sending a continuous signal with a low crest factor to the speaker, compression will typically begin 1/8 of the speaker's continuous watts handling.
  • If you're sending quick peaks to the speaker, which it can handle better, then the fraction of watts where compression begins is based on the speaker's peak watt handling (usually given as 4x continuous).
In which case, my speculative column is fine, since this whole list and thread is about handling dynamic peaks, not the average levels.

I hope some people well versed in speaker measurements and power handling can chime in!

Incidentally, here's a speaker that actually gives a graph of compression at 1 watt, 30 watts, and 100 watts! JBL studio monitor LSR6332: PDF of graphs.
post #148 of 820
Thread Starter 
Wow, an example of a manufacturer who, at least for their studio monitor line of speakers, provide much more information about the speaker's directivity, power handling, and distortion.

If only consumer model lines / manufacturers would provide such info!

Link to JBL LSR6336 PDF.

Quote:


Distortion, 96 dB SPL, 1 m3:

Low Frequency (below 120 Hz):
2nd Harmonic: <1.5%
3rd Harmonic: <1%

Mid and High Frequency
(120 Hz to 20 kHz):
2nd Harmonic: <0.5%
3rd Harmonic: <0.4%

Distortion, 102 dB SPL, 1 m3:

Low Frequency (below 120 Hz):
2nd Harmonic: <1.5%
3rd Harmonic: <1%

Mid and High Frequency
(80 Hz to 20 kHz):
2nd Harmonic: <1%

Plus 96dB and 102dB graphs in the PDF.
post #149 of 820
Thanks for taking the time to make this spreadsheet. I was considering popping $1500 on a pair of QSC Kw153 before I saw them ranked just slightly below the Klipsch KLF-30 that I already have. Maybe could just plunk down 75 bucks on a bob crites diaphragm upgrade and call it a day.
post #150 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post


What do you think? Would you find it difficult to do some searching on AVS, and look for some pro reviews, to categorize these into a few simple "bins"?

Read this one. You might want to nuke up a bag of popcorn first.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1353217
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › List of Reference Level, High Sensitivity & SPL Speakers