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 21

post #601 of 820
BTW, my amps doesn't clip at reference either. If my amp clips at 10 watts I would throw it away(unless it was a 4 watt amp).
post #602 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

I just measured the snip of my scissors at 90dB...when they were placed two inches from the meter. That puts this story into the urban myth bin.

Maybe Sideshow Bob was measuring the SPL of scissors snipping firecrackers?
post #603 of 820
Not sure if I can add anything here that hasn't already been said, but I was asked to comment in clarification.

As listed on the Pi Speakers website, both three Pi and four Pi speakers were measured using a standard groundplane measurement. The microphone distance was 10 feet and drive voltage was 8.62vrms. This produces the same value as 1W/1M from the acoustic center. The SPL shown on the charts can therefore be interpreted to be a 1W/1M figure.



three Pi response


four Pi response
post #604 of 820
Thread Starter 

Christmas Pi

Pi Speakers is the company of Wayne Parham, a speaker designer famous for his high performance designs at affordable prices. Wayne is a huge presence in the DIY world and has contributed greatly to low distortion, constant directivity theory and designs. He is gracious and helpful enough to recommend affordable driver solutions or alternative crossover designs to match individual users' needs on message boards, email, and phone. You can order flat packs, complete kits, or assembled speakers. He is proud of his designs and always available for help, even to provide speaker plans.

 

I added the 3Pi and 4Pi to the list in both fully assembled and kit form, because I think it's important for the community to see those options. Both of these are ported designs with uniform directivity, efficient woofers, and horn tweeters.

 

3Pi

 

The 3Pi comes with an Eminence PSD2002 compression driver and Eminence Delta 12LF 12" woofer, and as all Wayne's designs, there are many upgrade options available: from different drivers, to higher-grade crossover parts and cabinet materials and finishes. The 3Pi has 92dB sensitivity in room and 300w power handling. It's $850 assembled or $320 as a kit.

 

The 4Pi features an Eminence Omega 15 woofer and 600w power handling and 95dB in-room sensitivity. It's $1,000 in its base model configuration fully assembled, or $400 as a kit.4Pi


Edited by Eyleron - 12/20/12 at 9:32pm
post #605 of 820
Thanks for the kind words. And Merry Christmas to everyone here.

As I said above, I was talking with a friend of mine that suggested I write something in this thread, and my first thought was to refrain. But since you've brought the matter of sensitivity specs into the discussion, I did want to offer a small tidbit about the subject.

The in-room sensitivity sensitivity of a loudspeaker will always be louder than a ground-plane measurement shows. That is because the room confines the sound into a smaller space. So where you see 92dB in a ground-plane measurement, you can generally expect 95dB or so in your home. But I hesitate to use single metrics and rules of thumb like that, so let me explain further.

Sensitivity is a pretty simple subject, but it is not really something that can be reduced to a single metric. No speaker produces the same SPL at all frequencies, so the best way to talk about sensitivity is by looking at its response chart. It is also important to know the environment it will be used in, because this can change the SPL by as much as 9dB. Even more in a very small space, which is how car stereos can get so loud with relatively little acoustic power.

Many speaker companies rate sensitivity based on the maximum SPL at a given drive level, but sometimes the value they cite is only at a point where the speaker is beaming and in breakup. Not a very useful metric, although it is sometimes an impressively high SPL value. Breakup gives extra output because it's a diaphragm flex resonance mode and beaming gives extra on-axis output because the energy is focused more. But both of these are undesirable conditions that you would generally want to avoid. Controlled directivity is a good thing but excessive beaming is not.

Another thing that matters is the boundary conditions. If a speaker is mounted on a baffle, it is twice as loud as it would be in freespace. Likewise, if it is on a baffle and sitting on the ground - an intersection of two boundaries - it is louder than having just one boundary nearby, another doubling of sound power. In a corner, a speaker is nearly ten times as loud as it would be in freespace. In each case, it is because the energy produced by the speaker is radiating into a smaller space. One could say the speaker gains directivity by its proximity to the boundaries.

When comparing SPL from a loudspeaker, it is important to know what conditions it is being measured in. One could enforce a "rule" that all be measured in freespace or on a baffle, but that doesn't always work well. For example, it doesn't make sense to measure a speaker in freespace that is designed for corner placement. Not only will the SPL be different than what you could expect in-room, but the characteristics of the speaker will change too. The response curve will likely be adversely affected, because the speaker is designed for a particular acoustic load that it wouldn't get in freespace.

A sort of defacto standard has arisen, which is to measure raw drivers on a baffle. Subwoofers are usually measured ground plane. Full range speakers aren't measured as consistently though. Some are measured half-space, in a pit. Some are measured ground plane. Some are measured in free space. Some are measured in other environments.

The peanut gallery might scream at this, and demand a single standard be enforced. After all, it would be easier to evaluate speakers if they were all measured uniformly. But like I said above, some loudspeaker configurations are better viewed with a different measurement method than others. So it is probably better to study what each measurement condition does, and thereby know how to mentally compensate for the differences.

As I said above, each boundary added increases on-axis SPL. Indoors, in a home hifi environment, you really can't ever see anything except quarter-space and eighth-space. If the room is very large with a high ceiling, and if the speaker is on the floor in the middle of the room, it might act more like half-space. But this is almost never the case. So speakers in homes tend to act more like they're radiating into quarter-space, sometimes even eighth-space. Even if they're not directly on the ground and back against the wall, they are still radiating into a confined space, and this condition gives 3dB to 6dB more SPL than a half-space or ground-plane measurement.

The difference in half-space and ground plane measurements are that the ground plane measurement will show the baffle diffraction effects, whereas a true half-space measurement will not. A raw speaker driver mounted on an infinite baffle is a true half-space measurement. A loudspeaker cabinet laying in a pit facing upwards or in a soffit flush-mounted with its front baffle are both ways to get a half-space measurement from a loudspeaker cabinet.

But the problem with a half-space measurement is it doesn't show what the speaker does when it is used in its natural environment, which is usually not in a pit or in a soffit. It is sitting on the floor or on a stand. Ground plane measurements most closely duplicate this condition, because the speaker is standing on the ground, facing forward, just like it is used in a normal situation. This then shows the effects of the baffle step, and the ripple in directivity and response that is caused by it as well.

Generally speaking, you can expect a speaker to be about 3dB to 6dB louder indoors in a typical listening room than a ground plane measurement shows. If it is near a corner, it will be about 6dB louder than the ground plane measurement. If it is away from the corner, but within a few feet of a wall, it will be somewhere between 3dB and 6dB louder. Pulled way out from the walls, it will be about 3dB louder in most rooms, a little more in smaller room and less in larger rooms. Only if it is in a really big room with high ceilings will the SPL be the same as a ground plane measurement shows.

This also applies to half-space measurements (made in a pit). However, true half-space measurements of loudspeaker cabinets are rare. They're more commonly done on raw drivers. If you do see a true half-space measurement of a loudspeaker, you can expect it to show more SPL below the baffle diffraction transition, aka baffle step. It will have smoother response than a ground-plane measurement shows, because there is no baffle edge diffraction. And it will have fuller bass response, since it gains 3dB down low because there is no baffle step.

More discussions on this subject (and others) can be found in the Pi Speakers FAQ, especially in the sections called "Room Effects and Loudspeaker Interactions" and "Simulations and Measurements".
post #606 of 820
Wayne,

There are many entries on the lists with higher sensitivity numbers than 4pi and 3pi. If we rule out multiple woofers or full horn loading, what can possibly drive the sensitivity up or down?
What does it take for a two way to actually hit 97dB or even 99dB anechoic?

thank you
post #607 of 820
There is very little that can be done to get a direct radiating 15" woofer in halfspace above 98dB/W/M or so. That's pretty much a physical limit. The same could be said of a 12" woofer, except its limit is about 95dB. Multiple woofers or horn-loading can increase it, as you said. And boundary loading also brings it up, so in-room will yield higher SPL because it's in a constrained space.

But don't make the mistake of thinking anechoic necessarily means freespace. I suppose technically, that is the implication but in fact, most loudspeaker measurements are made on a baffle or groundplane. They're made in an envoronment that is reflection free, except for the halfspace boundary. Almost every speaker is measured that way, and the specs shown are for groundplane. Very few are truly measured in freespace.

In truth, we have a lot of apples and oranges in the specs sheets published by various organizations.

The best I've seen show amplitude response in the form of an SPL chart, and they list the drive voltage, microphone distance and environment (groundplane, flown 30 feet from the ground or any obstruction, baffle mounted, etc.) This gives enough information to know exactly what performance to expect in various conditions.

Older spec sheets tend to simply list a single sensitivity figure, and that is often inflated. It may be an "in-room" spec, meaning quarter-space or half-space, which is 3dB to 6dB greater than a groundplane measurement. That's fine, as long as we know what it is, since the speakers are probably going to be used "in-room" anyway. But the fact remains that one can easily make an apples-and-oranges comparison by mistake.
post #608 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Parham View Post

There is very little that can be done to get a direct radiating 15" woofer in halfspace above 98dB/W/M or so. That's pretty much a physical limit. The same could be said of a 12" woofer, except its limit is about 95dB. Multiple woofers or horn-loading can increase it, as you said. And boundary loading also brings it up, so in-room will yield higher SPL because it's in a constrained space.
But don't make the mistake of thinking anechoic necessarily means freespace. I suppose technically, that is the implication but in fact, most loudspeaker measurements are made on a baffle or groundplane. They're made in an envoronment that is reflection free, except for the halfspace boundary. Almost every speaker is measured that way, and the specs shown are for groundplane. Very few are truly measured in freespace.
In truth, we have a lot of apples and oranges in the specs sheets published by various organizations.
The best I've seen show amplitude response in the form of an SPL chart, and they list the drive voltage, microphone distance and environment (groundplane, flown 30 feet from the ground or any obstruction, baffle mounted, etc.) This gives enough information to know exactly what performance to expect in various conditions.
Older spec sheets tend to simply list a single sensitivity figure, and that is often inflated. It may be an "in-room" spec, meaning quarter-space or half-space, which is 3dB to 6dB greater than a groundplane measurement. That's fine, as long as we know what it is, since the speakers are probably going to be used "in-room" anyway. But the fact remains that one can easily make an apples-and-oranges comparison by mistake.

Thank you.

To use an example, Tannoy DC12i is using HE 12" coax driver and has listed sensitivity number of 97dB (1W = 2.83V for 8 Ohms). Is it safe to assume the number cannot be based on true anechoic (no boundary reinforcement) measurements?
post #609 of 820
Thread Starter 

Thanks for the great information, clarification, and points that there needs to be more work to qualify the specs or bring them in line for more realistic comparison (even if all we're doing is comparing manufacturers' marketing specs which try to make the speaker look as good as possible).

 

A lot to digest. Good thing there's a Christmas vacation coming up!

post #610 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

To use an example, Tannoy DC12i is using HE 12" coax driver and has listed sensitivity number of 97dB (1W = 2.83V for 8 Ohms). Is it safe to assume the number cannot be based on true anechoic (no boundary reinforcement) measurements?

I would assume the measurement was halfspace (or groundplane). They do not say, but I think it's a safe assumption. Most everyone measures that way.

So if you wanted to calculate what the SPL would be in freespace, subtract 3dB. Of course, at higher frequencies where the speaker becomes directional, the halfspace/freespace distinction won't matter anymore, because beamwidth becomes narrower than halfspace. But at low and midrange frequencies, the boundary conditions will constrain the radiating angle. That's where you'll notice the difference in SPL.

As an aside, understand that most anechoic chambers can't prevent reflections below a few hundred Hertz. So they aren't truly anechoic, but actually semi-anechoic. There are very few anechoic chambers large enough to provide freespace measurements down to even 100Hz, all in universities or government agencies, e.g. NASA.

Outdoors is truly anechoic, but you have the elements to deal with. Kind of a bummer this time of year. rolleyes.gif

In either case, (semi) anechoic chamber or outdoors, if the speaker isn't suspended high off the ground, the speaker is on a ground plane, whether you like it or not. So we're back to the requirement that freespace measurements can only be done with the speaker flown high in the air. Ground plane and halfspace measurements are much easier to do, and just as useful. You just have to know that the boundary conditions bring up the on-axis SPL 3dB compared to freespace, up to the frequency where speaker beamwidth is narrower than halfspace.
post #611 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by zheka View Post

To use an example, Tannoy DC12i is using HE 12" coax driver and has listed sensitivity number of 97dB (1W = 2.83V for 8 Ohms). Is it safe to assume the number cannot be based on true anechoic (no boundary reinforcement) measurements?
That's probably a half-space figure, as that's the industry standard. It may not be the best way to measure speakers, but the point is that if everyone does it the same way then you can make valid comparisons between them. 97dB isn't tough to realize, but to do so you won't go very low. That's born out by the SPL chart, which shows f3 at 100Hz.
post #612 of 820
Wayne thanks for the wonderfull insight and info! smile.gif
post #613 of 820
i guess it's a bit of a stretch, but since this list has kinda 'rocked' my world, i was wondering if asking wich kind of amplifiers, preferably under 5 grand, would perform well with these kind of speakers, be good to post here ?
post #614 of 820
The beauty of high-sensitivity is that they don't (normally, unless you are doing ungodly volumes... like in pro audio) require a lot of juice to run.

Pick your speaker, determine your needed volume, and then compute the required wattage. Emotiva, ATI, Yamaha, there are lots of good inexpensive choices.
post #615 of 820
Thread Starter 

Needed Amplifiers

 

It can be hard to tell, especially given the discussion and title of thread, but I actually wanted to include any speakers that could achieve reference levels in this thread, (EDIT: whether that's via robust power handling (continuous and peak) with low distortion, or with high sensitivity.) 

 

Thus, that includes lower-sensitivity speakers that do have a high power handling.

 

You'll see in the Google spreadsheet a column for Watts to Reach 105dB. This is based just on sensitivity. Many speakers only need 20, 60, or 100 watts. So a receiver should be fine.
At the bottom of this column you'll see some speakers need a lot of watts. 

 

Next to this is "% Watts Peak" which is: "The required watts to get to 105dB peaks from 12 feet away is THIS percentage of the speaker's peak watt handling ability."


You should realize that the peak power handling calculation will vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some based it on simply 4x what the RMS power handling was, which may or may not be based on the different testing standards out there. Or it might be the point at which destruction is reached. Or it might be where distortion reached some unacceptable threshold. The latter is more laudable but more rare. If you can think a speaker can handle 400w brief peaks from your Emotiva amp, what would you think if you knew that 400w will yield 80% THD at 80 Hz to 500 Hz? 

 

I have used conditional formatting to indicate that needing 200% of the available power for the 105dB peaks is a Fail, at least on this list. But after further discussion and reading, I wonder if even 100% is that acceptable?

 

There's also a "100 watts dB" column that I put in just to underscore how loud it would get with the amount of watts in a typical receiver. This is also sensitivity-related.

 

Last, you can look at the output on the right given Program Watts dB or Peak Watts dB. This is related to sensitivity and power-handling, and shows, according to the marketing and the calculations what output you'd get from 12 feet in an anechoic room if you feed those levels of watts to the speaker. If you want to better-ensure (still no guarantee) that the speaker is less distorted and more likely within linear x-max, you might use Program Watts dB what level a speaker might output. Some speakers would work with flea-size-amps. Others would need an Emotiva or larger amp. 

 

What we don't see running the SPL calculators is how much the speaker is distorting with what wattage. While a receiver review will include the graph that shows distortion going up exponentially when the limit is reached, we don't usually get such with speakers. 

 

I highly recommend the Klippel papers if you're interested in the different types of speaker distortion. 

 

Like we hear everywhere else, "Headroom is your friend." Don't run the speaker or the amp at the red line. If you want 100dB peaks, then get a speaker that can produce that and more, loafing, and the sound will be less strained. If it seems like you need 120w from your 120w receiver for the level you desire and your speakers can handle 400w, then buy a bigger external amp. 


Edited by Eyleron - 1/2/13 at 6:24pm
post #616 of 820
Thread Starter 

 

SEOS

SEOS is a DIY project borne out of members right here on AVS (investment, organization, speaker designs, etc.), and it offers tremendous value for those looking for stand-mount speakers with incredible sensitivity, quality parts, and designs that eliminate the "horn honk" and harshness you've heard from other horn speakers.

 

Intro

Some of you may have heard of the DIY effort sheparded by Zilch to build economical horn speakers by re-using old cabinets, adding a designed (or even pre-built) crossover, a JBL or QSC clone waveguide (horn), and a compression driver (tweeter) like the Selenium 220i or the better B&C DE250. The project even appeared in magazines and has been referenced around the world. I'd like to add some Econowave designs if someone can help me navigate the best variants that would be suitable (many don't have great sensitivity, I can't find info on their power handlings except for "100s of watts," and some models seem to droop in frequency response down low but I believe that's related to the design of the baffle step compensation). 

 

Design

I mention so much of Econowave because many of the principals and principles involves apply to SEOS speakers, which stands for Super Elliptical Oblate Spheroid, which describes the special shape of the waveguide. It was engineered after countless hours as an evolution of previous designs, intended to reduce the harshness, "horn honk," and provide controlled directivity with 90 degrees horizontal and 40 degrees vertical, so that the frequency response remains as constant as possible as you fall off-axis. Not only does this provide better direct sound for your audience, but the reflections off the side walls are more even and the ceiling and floor bounce is reduced: things that Floyd Toole promotes.

 

Options

The SEOS project AVS link, DIYSoundGroup link), spearheaded by AVS member Erich H over the past couple years, provides discounted group buys, the SEOS line of wave guides (most popularly in a 12"), discounted drivers, and well-thought-out designs that have specific goals in mind. You can...

  • Build these designs yourself and source everything yourself. I made a temporary spreadsheet to list the current designs side-by-side: Google Spreadsheet of SEOS Kit Matrix that helps while more info and capability is added to the site.
  • Source everything from the SEOS website at www.diysoundgroup.com and build it yourself.
  • Or get pre-made/cut baffles and flat packs with all the parts.
  • ...whatever you do, finish them in veneer, have a cabinet builder help turn them into furniture, paint them speaker-black, leave them raw, hide them behind an acoustically-transparent screen-- it's up to you.

 

The site and the project is growing weekly, with new designs for slanted surrounds, on-walls, centers, small speakers, towers, etc. The designs vary from low budget value with a sub, super high output low distortion, more extension for stereo without a sub, etc. 

There's even a new line of B&C compression driver clones, such as the Denovo DNA-350 and DNA-360 clones, which actually best the original for a lower price!

 

Models on Reference Level Speakers List

I've added four of the many models available in 10" and 12" woofer models, but there are 15" woofer designs too.

 

Fusion-12 Tempest, Fusion-12 Max, Fusion-10 Pure, Karma-10.

The newly-named "Fusion" line is a middle-of-the-pack in cost and performance. 

The Karma line is the budget value leader.

 

Their sensitivity range from 97dB to 98dB with 200 to 1200w peak power handling. Most of them are intended for use with a sub, as they use drivers and crossover designs optimizing sensitivity and mid-bass punch. I'll add more models later, and you can check out the rest of the kits, or browse the forums (SEOS Discussions, SEOS Designs) and ask around, and you'll find other designs in the works, such as in-wall, on-wall, small and large centers, etc. See the kits side by side in the SEOS Compare spreadsheet. I suspect there may be finished speaker to purchase at some point. 

 

Questions

I'm unsure about some of the data, so I hope some will chime in and correct and elaborate...

 

Power handling: can you check that? It was often given like "Recommended Power: 20-125w (200 max)" so I interpreted the "200 max" as the peak handling, with 100w being "program" and thus by typical extension 50w would be RMS. But, maybe I'm off by a factor of two, and to equate these to other speakers, I should be saying 100w RMS, 200w Program, 400w Peak. 

 

Sensitivity: should I equate the given sensitivities as anechoic or in-room.

 

Pricing: Just a note: for now, the price for a kit doesn't include the full box, so I took the kit, subtracted the baffle price, and added the flatpack for that size speaker. As Erich adds options and packages to the site I'll adjust the pricing as needed.

 

Waveguide: I haven't seen the dispersion of the SEOS-12. 90 deg by 40? 120 by 50? 90 deg horizontal, 40 degrees vertical.


Edited by Eyleron - 1/4/13 at 8:04am
post #617 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post


Waveguide: I haven't seen the dispersion of the SEOS-12. 90 deg by 40? 120 by 50?

it's 90x40

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1369780/at-last-the-seos12-measurements
post #618 of 820
Thread Starter 

Thanks! Fixed in spreadsheet.

 

How does one measure from a directivity sonogram? The -3db points?

post #619 of 820
-6
post #620 of 820
I would love to try out the SEOS speakers but my DR's sound so good for even cheaper there is no need. I am always looking for better but I have to come to realize better might be just a little better and for much more money.
post #621 of 820
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne Parham View Post

I would assume the measurement was halfspace (or groundplane). 

I looked more deeply at the Tannoy DC12i and DC8i.

 

The spec sheet excel file for the DC8i shows max spl at average and peak drive levels, and the footnote says measured anechoic. The numbers added up with an 89dB sensitivity (using 89 plus their drive levels at 1 meter yielded their stated SPL in anechoic chamber). I dropped the DC8i sensitivity based on that and Wayne's comments. Kind of disappointing, since it is an 8" driver with 85 Hz extension, I would've expected more sensitivity. Oh well.

 

Interestingly, though, the spec sheet for the DC12i showed max SPL levels that I could only reach if I kept the sensitivity at the published 97dB. So, different from the DC8i. Seems plausible to my naive eye since it's a 12" woofer and only 50 Hz extension. So I'll keep the 12" Tannoys at 97dB for now.

post #622 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I would love to try out the SEOS speakers but my DR's sound so good for even cheaper there is no need. I am always looking for better but I have to come to realize better might be just a little better and for much more money.

For sure youve found the point of diminishing returns especially for your size of room. Some day id like to try a SEOS kit too but im really happy with my SHO-10s as of now.
Edited by Reddig - 1/4/13 at 1:39pm
post #623 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyleron View Post

Needed Amplifiers




It can be hard to tell, especially given the discussion and title of thread, but I actually wanted to include any speakers that could achieve reference levels in this thread, (EDIT: whether that's via robust power handling (continuous and peak) with low distortion, or with high sensitivity.) 

Thus, that includes lower-sensitivity speakers that do have a high power handling.

You'll see in the Google spreadsheet a column for Watts to Reach 105dB. This is based just on sensitivity. Many speakers only need 20, 60, or 100 watts. So a receiver should be fine.

At the bottom of this column you'll see some speakers need a lot of watts. 

Next to this is "% Watts Peak" which is: "The required watts to get to 105dB peaks from 12 feet away is THIS percentage of the speaker's peak watt handling ability."


You should realize that the peak power handling calculation will vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some based it on simply 4x what the RMS power handling was, which may or may not be based on the different testing standards out there. Or it might be the point at which destruction is reached. Or it might be where distortion reached some unacceptable threshold. The latter is more laudable but more rare. If you can think a speaker can handle 400w brief peaks from your Emotiva amp, what would you think if you knew that 400w will yield 80% THD at 80 Hz to 500 Hz? 

I have used conditional formatting to indicate that needing 200% of the available power for the 105dB peaks is a Fail, at least on this list. But after further discussion and reading, I wonder if even 100% is that acceptable?

There's also a "100 watts dB" column that I put in just to underscore how loud it would get with the amount of watts in a typical receiver. This is also sensitivity-related.

Last, you can look at the output on the right given Program Watts dB or Peak Watts dB. This is related to sensitivity and power-handling, and shows, according to the marketing and the calculations what output you'd get from 12 feet in an anechoic room if you feed those levels of watts to the speaker. If you want to better-ensure (still no guarantee) that the speaker is less distorted and more likely within linear x-max, you might use Program Watts dB what level a speaker might output. Some speakers would work with flea-size-amps. Others would need an Emotiva or larger amp. 

What we don't see running the SPL calculators is how much the speaker is distorting with what wattage. While a receiver review will include the graph that shows distortion going up exponentially when the limit is reached, we don't usually get such with speakers. 

I highly recommend the Klippel papers if you're interested in the different types of speaker distortion. 
Like we hear everywhere else, "Headroom is your friend." Don't run the speaker or the amp at the red line. If you want 100dB peaks, then get a speaker that can produce that and more, loafing, and the sound will be less strained. If it seems like you need 120w from your 120w receiver for the level you desire and your speakers can handle 400w, then buy a bigger external amp. 

I really like the way you summed that up. Excellenty put! As well as the SEOS post. Im a huge fan of the desgin. Great one to tackle some day.
Edited by Reddig - 1/4/13 at 1:26pm
post #624 of 820
Have anybody here tried the cheapo Yorkville two ways? I do not not expect much in terms of the SQ but perhaps for surrounds it may be an adequate choice?
I have a chance to pick a pair of YX10s for $200, pretty much at the cost of the cabs.
http://www.yorkville.com/products.asp?type=29&cat=58&id=348
post #625 of 820
Thread Starter 

Cheap PA/Pro Speakers?

 

I wonder how many of the cheap pro speakers I should even list, and how many can be trusted to even try in the home? People say a lot of bad things about a lot of them. 

 

Are their problems:

  • Bad horns that provide output but poorly controlled directivity (granted they may be geared towards a venue where reflective walls are far away and less important?), which would show up in polar response
  • Little to no attempt at smooth frequency response (on or off-axis)?
  • Less care about distortion (so the SPL is at expense of, say, 50% distortion at even medium drive levels)?
  • ??

 

Reviews

It's hard to find reviews of some of them. All one might find is, "My band used to use that...it worked pretty nice, rocked hard."

I suppose we could give a speaker more credit if there's a published frequency response chart, and better yet if it was reviewed by a professional?

 

Brands to trust more?

  • QSC
  • Electrovoice
  • Yorkville
  • Mackie

 

Brands to trust less?

  • Carvin
  • Peavey

 

Suitability to Residential Space

Dennis Erskine said in this thread a while back:

Quote:
At a seating distance typical of a residential sized theater, many of the speakers listed will take your head off since the high frequency output has been designed for much greater seating distances.

So, because high frequencies attenuate faster through air, if the speaker was intended for, say, 100' plus distances, the designers may have accounted for that by producing way more treble. At a one meter or four meter distance, it'd look like it's not a flat response, and if used in the home un-EQ'd it'd be terrible bright/harsh. If one tries such a speaker, it'd be nice to hear how that was addressed. MKTheater's BFM speakers, for instance, are intended to have an EQ to get the proper response tailored for the space. 

 

Wow Zheka it'd be interesting to see measurements and learn your impressions if you do try those Yorkies!

post #626 of 820
I would stick with PA speakers that have been tried in a HT setting and the experience from that. Most of the time if a speaker sounds good to many it is most likely a good speaker. There are always exceptions. Take the QSC K series for example, they are very good and sound much better than what you might think for their intended purposes. My room naturally boosts the Midbass and reduces the treble at my LP so the BFM's after EQ sound as good as any I have owned. They are a tweakers speaker meaning you have to measure. Many speakers sound great in many different rooms because they have been tweaked with DSP or an extensive crossover to get flat at the cabinet and many will own these forever and then try a tweakers speaker without tweaking enough and say they suck.
post #627 of 820
SHO-10's are great and would satisfy most. The BFM's are bigger sounding and more dynamic but the rest of the differences most won't care to notice, especially integrating subs.
post #628 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimsfield View Post

The following is a description of an experience well-known amplifier designer Bob Carver had: "Once, Bob Carver visited a famous sound researcher who was attempting to recreate the "snip" of an ordinary pair of scissors. He used no less than TWENTY-FOUR 200-watt amplifiers for playback, yet when viewed on an oscilloscope it was apparent that the top of that instantaneous transient was being distorted. Believe it or not, he needed more power! It was evident that real-world sound occurs very quickly and requires far more power than ANY current amplifier could produce.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=73991.0
Speech is composed in part of affricatives, or consonants that begin as stops, like Ts and Ds. These are similar to the scissors snip in the experience Bob Carver had. They are instantaneous transients that require an enormous amount of power to reproduce without clipping. Even with high efficiency speakers you need all the power you can get. Then hope your speakers will produce those transients without distorting too much.

The "famous sound researcher" was Dick Burwen. The amps were Phase Linear 400s, hence Bob Carver's involvement. I remember reading the scissors story and I thought it came from a 1976 Audio magazine article on Burwen's sound system. The story is not in the article written by Burwen himself. It may have been in an accompanying article. In any case you can see the article and Burwen's system in its current state here:

http://www.burwenaudio.com/Sound_System.html

If you think you are serious about audio, take a look at this system and recalibrate your thinking. And wipe that drool from your mouth.

Cheers,
OldMovieNut
post #629 of 820
Maybe soemthing from Danley...but to your point. Very expensive!
post #630 of 820
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMovieNut View Post

The "famous sound researcher" was Dick Burwen. The amps were Phase Linear 400s, hence Bob Carver's involvement. I remember reading the scissors story and I thought it came from a 1976 Audio magazine article on Burwen's sound system. The story is not in the article written by Burwen himself. It may have been in an accompanying article. In any case you can see the article and Burwen's system in its current state here:
http://www.burwenaudio.com/Sound_System.html
If you think you are serious about audio, take a look at this system and recalibrate your thinking. And wipe that drool from your mouth.
Cheers,
OldMovieNut

damn, this goes way beyond, i'm not even sure what i'm looking at, i guess one needs to hear something like this.

That being said, i'm pretty sure teh audiokinesis lines also belong on this distinguished list, have a look guys :

http://www.audiokinesis.com/akspeakers.html

i would definitely be in the market for a 5,1 planetarium system , i definitely like the cabinet size of those sattelites, just not sure where i'd put four subs lol.

expecially the rethm prism should qualify for this list at 93 db w m sensitivity and 900 watts peak power handling and at 2300 bucks a pair assembled not at all that crazy
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