How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 73 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6373Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2161 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 12:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Actually, the old CR ratings were totally based on measurements (the wrong ones) and a calculation based on faulty interpretation of old psychoacoustic data. The problem was that they did not do blind or double-blind listening on the products they rated. If they had done so, I expect that they would have discovered the problem and modified their program. I visited them many years ago and saw where they did their original listening tests to "prove" their method. It was a large acoustically live room filled with folding chairs.
I didn't want to quote the whole post and take up space, but I really appreciate all the background. It's an unfortunate situation indeed, but you at least tried.

I've never read a CR review outside of their car reliability stuff, so I'm not really familiar with their overall style. So in short, they were attempting to be technical, but just went about it in the wrong way and then never course corrected once given the proper procedures. I guess that doesn't surprise me.

Well, on the bright side, maybe it's not too late...If not CR, then hopefully Harman, the NRC or someone else can take the reigns.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 12:38 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2162 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 12:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
If you look closely the QA Concept 500 does have a waveguide, albeit a small one.
Not gonna repost the giant picture in the name of thread readability, but that's not a waveguide as it's most commonly referred to. I think of a waveguide as being able to restrict dispersion down to at least the crossover point. At that size and depth, that "waveguide" would be lucky to restrict down to 7-8kHz. In reality, you almost need a true horn like Klipsch, JBL, or Hsu uses to reach down to ~2kHz.

When I think of a "waveguide", I think of the ones used by Revel, PSB, Elac, Kef, Genelec, Mackie, Neumann, etc. That QA one looks just like any OEM tweeter front plate and nothing special. By your definition, even my various Dyns all have a "waveguide" of sorts built-in to the front plate.
avkv, head_unit and SouthernCA like this.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 12:53 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2163 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 12:58 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 479
Quote:
As I have said, almost all 2-way loudspeakers are compromised to some extent in the transition from woofer/mid to tweeter. Some more than others, depending on the specific drivers, their size, diaphragm breakup characteristics, and cabinet baffle effect and diffraction. Generalization is not entirely safe
A lot of discussions have popped up recently about this issue with two-ways, with some taking a position that any driver larger than 5.25" is a poor design, and they often paraphrase you to make the point. My position and Lonestar's, if I can paraphrase him, is it depends on the various factors you mention. I'm sure you've run into the situation where folks take something you've said and run with it, going beyond what you originally intended. Such is your burden.

In the case of Revel, even Kevin has stated in this thread or maybe the dedicated Revel thread, that overall he prefers the M106 over the M105. I think Rex has stated something to the same effect. Not all manufacturers though, I imagine, get the directivity close enough with their ~6.5" to make it worthwhile over their 5.25".

So thanks for clarifying that it depends.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2164 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 01:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
Not gonna repost the giant picture in the name of thread readability, but that's not a waveguide as it's most commonly referred to. I think of a waveguide as being able to restrict dispersion down to at least the crossover point. At that size and depth, that "waveguide" would be lucky to restrict down to 7-8kHz. In reality, you almost need a true horn like Klipsch, JBL, or Hsu uses to reach down to ~2kHz.

When I think of a "waveguide", I think of the ones used by Revel, PSB, Elac, Kef, Genelec, Mackie, Neumann, etc. That QA one looks just like any OEM tweeter front plate and nothing special. By your definition, even my various Dyns all have a "waveguide" of sorts built-in to the front plate.


In the end what matters is the measurement data. If it is indeed very good, then whatever they have going on is doing its job.
There’s too much variables to make judgements based on photos. I merely spotted a ‘small’ waveguide. I remember older Revel and Infinity models sporting small waveguides as well.
Even the JBL LSR 6332 has a smaller than average waveguide. Whatever gets the job done.
TimVG is online now  
post #2165 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 01:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Whatever gets the job done.
I certainly agree with that. This is basically my point, that there are many ways to skin a cat. Great measurements can certainly be obtained by 6.5" 2-ways without waveguides, despite the contrary that is often repeated.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 02:40 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2166 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 01:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,594
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 1236
If you notice in the literature, Revel states the waveguide for the F228Be is 5th generation. I don't see the difference between it and the F208 (4th generation), but I bet it has been slightly altered for the Be series. Extreme attention to detail in the designs. Something to do with the crossover, new drivers etc.

I do not have first hand experience with the M106 vs M105, so I have quoted Kevin when folks ask about the differences. Anyone can send me some and I'll be happy to give a full report!
Rex Anderson is offline  
post #2167 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 01:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
I do not have first hand experience with the M106 vs M105, so I have quoted Kevin when folks ask about the differences. Anyone can send me some and I'll be happy to give a full report!
I asked this same question in the Revel thread, but never received a response:

The M105 and M106 use the same size waveguide and crossover point, despite the differences in woofer size and cabinet dimensions.

Is there an engineering reason for this? Shouldn't the larger M106 have a correspondingly larger waveguide and lower crossover point to better match directivity between drivers?

Just an idle curiosity, since it seems like the M106 off-axis performance could easily be improved to match the excellence of the M105 off-axis performance, if it had been more customized.

Maybe the M105 was the primary design and the M106 just reused the waveguide and crossover hardware to save costs? It seems odd that they would be the same.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2168 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 03:35 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3075
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
I asked this same question in the Revel thread, but never received a response:

The M105 and M106 use the same size waveguide and crossover point, despite the differences in woofer size and cabinet dimensions.

Is there an engineering reason for this? Shouldn't the larger M106 have a correspondingly larger waveguide and lower crossover point to better match directivity between drivers?

Just an idle curiosity, since it seems like the M106 off-axis performance could easily be improved to match the excellence of the M105 off-axis performance, if it had been more customized.

Maybe the M105 was the primary design and the M106 just reused the waveguide and crossover hardware to save costs? It seems odd that they would be the same.
Having seen some of the measurements during waveguide design it is more than just the size that affects directivity - it is the curvature. Sometimes it is very hard to see a difference.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2169 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 03:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Anderson View Post
If you notice in the literature, Revel states the waveguide for the F228Be is 5th generation. I don't see the difference between it and the F208 (4th generation), but I bet it has been slightly altered for the Be series. Extreme attention to detail in the designs. Something to do with the crossover, new drivers etc.

I do not have first hand experience with the M106 vs M105, so I have quoted Kevin when folks ask about the differences. Anyone can send me some and I'll be happy to give a full report!

"Waveguide" on Be models looks deeper to me, from pictures at least.
I am more curious what is that "thing" in front of tweeter doing on Be models. From my memory, those are used to disperse nasty stuff in (typically) metal dome tweeters, but I see no reason to put that in front of Be tweet with really really high breakup. I might be wrong on whats it doing though...maybe just dispersing highest frequencies in controlled manner?



Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
I asked this same question in the Revel thread, but never received a response:

The M105 and M106 use the same size waveguide and crossover point, despite the differences in woofer size and cabinet dimensions.

Is there an engineering reason for this? Shouldn't the larger M106 have a correspondingly larger waveguide and lower crossover point to better match directivity between drivers?

Just an idle curiosity, since it seems like the M106 off-axis performance could easily be improved to match the excellence of the M105 off-axis performance, if it had been more customized.

Maybe the M105 was the primary design and the M106 just reused the waveguide and crossover hardware to save costs? It seems odd that they would be the same.
Oh woe, and there is also same waveguide in C208 handing it over to 4" midrange.
I do have a slight need to pull it out from C208, remove waveguide and put tweet on flat baffle to see the difference.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2170 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 04:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vergiliusm View Post
In the case of Revel, even Kevin has stated in this thread or maybe the dedicated Revel thread, that overall he prefers the M106 over the M105. I think Rex has stated something to the same effect. Not all manufacturers though, I imagine, get the directivity close enough with their ~6.5" to make it worthwhile over their 5.25".

So thanks for clarifying that it depends.
Yes but you also have to remember that Harman tests speakers full range where the bass difference is going to have a large effect on preference. I just grabbed a pair of M105 off audiogon and am in the process of auditioning them and they have more than enough bass to blend with my subs even with a 4th order 100Hz high pass on them. At that crossover, they seem to be able to play very loud and clean and I don't really see how the M106 would add anything. The M105 is better in every other measurement of smoothness or flatness, so I don't see how going bigger is better unless I'm running into some kind of output limitation with the 105s, the loudest I ever listen is around 85db so I would say they are in their comfort zone in that range.
DS-21 likes this.
aarons915 is online now  
post #2171 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 04:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Having seen some of the measurements during waveguide design it is more than just the size that affects directivity - it is the curvature. Sometimes it is very hard to see a difference.
It's possible the subtle curvature is slightly different between the two and isn't readily noticeable in pictures. Still surprised about having the same crossover point though. Anyway, thanks for the reminder about profile geometries beyond just width and depth.

Fluid dynamics is a complicated subject to be sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
Oh woe, and there is also same waveguide in C208 handing it over to 4" midrange.
I do have a slight need to pull it out from C208, remove waveguide and put tweet on flat baffle to see the difference.
I'm just asking questions here and trying to learn.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 04:23 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2172 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 04:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
The M105 is better in every other measurement of smoothness or flatness, so I don't see how going bigger is better unless I'm running into some kind of output limitation with the 105s, the loudest I ever listen is around 85db so I would say they are in their comfort zone in that range.
There's a huge difference in dynamics and bass distortion starting at 200Hz when going from a 5 to 6 inch woofer. It's extremely obvious even with a 80Hz crossover.

I have swapped my X14's and X18 for use in 2.0 and in 2.1, in a small and big room for testing, and the difference in realism, scale, impact, and midbass is beyond obvious. And no, I don't listen loud. Even the 75dB calibration tones are way too loud for me.

The difference in scale and dynamics, in particular, with or without a sub, shouldn't even be controversial I wouldn't think.

I'm not saying one is clearly "better" than the other, but they have at the very least some equivalent advantages. The M105 has textbook measurements, to be clear, and may indeed sound better than the M106, but I do think more could have been done to bring the M106 performance more inline with the M105, especially off-axis.

I guess the question is whether the M105 off-axis performance more than makes up for the M106's other more noticeable advantages.

Not a question directed at you, (and btw I've really enjoyed reading your reviews on here), but why is it that center channels are practically universally recommended to have 6.5" drivers over 5.25" if possible? There must be something to that as I've never seen anyone prefer or recommend the smaller center unless the design was totally botched.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 05:00 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2173 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 04:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
I'm just asking questions here and trying to learn.
Sure, sure, I am puzzled as well if you didn't figure it, given how incospicuous the waveguide is. Hence my need to dissect it.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2174 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 04:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
Sure, sure, I am puzzled as well if you didn't figure it, given how incospicuous the waveguide is. Hence my need to dissect it.
Oh, I see and my apologies. I was reading your post as sarcasm. That was my fault and probably just a language thing.

And FWIW, I would be way too nervous to dissect a speaker like that, lol. You are a much braver man than I!

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2175 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
There's a huge difference in dynamics and bass distortion starting at 200Hz when going from a 5 to 6 inch woofer. It's extremely obvious even with a 80Hz crossover.

I have swapped my X14's and X18 for use in 2.0 and in 2.1, in a small and big room for testing, and the difference in realism, scale, impact, and midbass is beyond obvious. And no, I don't listen loud. Even the 75dB calibration tones are way too loud for me.

The difference in scale and dynamics, in particular, with or without a sub, shouldn't even be controversial I wouldn't think.
If you have the ability through some sort of DSP or whatever you should high pass your mains at 100Hz with a high order slope, 4th order or steeper, and you'll see above 100Hz ,Dynamics, realism, scale and other words that all basically mean bass output aren't really there. The range you're talking about occurs from about 50-70Hz and is where a larger woofer is going to have a bass advantage. I've done much more extreme comparisons than the 105/106, like comparing the BMR with a 7" woofer to my KEF LS50, which do have higher than normal distortion below 200Hz, and there is no audible difference between 100-200Hz. With my subs added to the mix and equalized to be the same below 100Hz, there is no audible difference in the bass between each system.

Dr. Toole has stated before that there isn't conclusive evidence regarding the audibility of distortion but there are some who have tried to test it, like axiom audio in this article: https://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/distortion ,they conclude that at frequencies of 280Hz and lower, the distortion had to climb to 20% before it was audible. Even my LS50s are around 3% or less below 200Hz and the Revels I suspect are both around 1.5% or lower in those ranges.
vavan likes this.
aarons915 is online now  
post #2176 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
If you have the ability through some sort of DSP or whatever you should high pass your mains at 100Hz with a high order slope, 4th order or steeper, and you'll see above 100Hz ,Dynamics, realism, scale and other words that all basically mean bass output aren't really there. The range you're talking about occurs from about 50-70Hz and is where a larger woofer is going to have a bass advantage. I've done much more extreme comparisons than the 105/106, like comparing the BMR with a 7" woofer to my KEF LS50, which do have higher than normal distortion below 200Hz, and there is no audible difference between 100-200Hz. With my subs added to the mix and equalized to be the same below 100Hz, there is no audible difference in the bass between each system.

Dr. Toole has stated before that there isn't conclusive evidence regarding the audibility of distortion but there are some who have tried to test it, like axiom audio in this article: https://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/distortion ,they conclude that at frequencies of 280Hz and lower, the distortion had to climb to 20% before it was audible. Even my LS50s are around 3% or less below 200Hz and the Revels I suspect are both around 1.5% or lower in those ranges.
That's very interesting info.

I think more important than distortion is possibly compression and maybe that is more audible? I really don't know, but I do know I hear a big difference between speaker sizes in my rooms. I've only tried 2nd order crossovers (I assume) but the actual crossover point is more about localization and and a smooth blend than distortion.

I agree that bass distortion isn't a huge deal, but scale and realism are and must be somewhat related. Even up to 200Hz would have to be audible as far dynamics is concerned, I would think, even at low levels, but maybe not. Whatever it is, most people can hear differences is speaker sizes even when crossed over, I'd assume (and maybe I shouldn't!)

I'm honestly surprised that you didn't notice any difference between your BMRs and the LS50 with a sub (I hope and pray you heard one without!) since I've always been able to hear the obvious (to me) differences.

Good discussion and maybe I just need a more elaborate set-up and an upgrade in electronics. Swapping between bigger and smaller speakers is always pretty noticeable to me and I don't think I've ever preferred the smaller, but that might just be me!

Larger center channels (minimum 6.5") are basically universally recommended around here, and they are responsible for 80% of the soundtrack. If it's necessary for the center, why not the LR stereo pair too?

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 05:17 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2177 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
Oh, I see and my apologies. I was reading your post as sarcasm. That was my fault and probably just a language thing.

And FWIW, I would be way too nervous to dissect a speaker like that, lol. You are a much braver man than I!
Nah my comment was more like... "oh look, they are totally cheapskating by putting same waveguide on 8 different designs" . Actually I am assuming it works fine in all cases, but I can't really model it to see what it does so...
As for the speaker, it will survive, maybe.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2178 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post

I'm honestly surprised that you didn't notice any difference between your BMRs and the LS50 even with a sub (I hope and pray you heard one without!) since I've always been able to hear the obvious (to me) differences.

Good discussion and maybe I just need a more elaborate set-up and an upgrade in electronics. Swapping between bigger and smaller speakers is always pretty noticeable to me and I don't think I've ever preferred the smaller, but that might just be me!
There was a big difference without a sub, the BMR almost don't need subs at all but I still noticed a bit more output in the lowest octave when I added the subs back in. What you're preferring is undoubtedly the increased bass response, ever since I started measuring and shaping my bass response to exactly what I like, it all sounds the same, which it should. If you measured your X14 and X18 and used EQ to match the bass response, I suspect you'd hear that they sound identical in the bass, impact, fullness, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
Larger center channels (minimum 6.5") are basically universally recommended around here, and they are responsible for 80% of the soundtrack. If it's necessary for the center, why not the LR stereo pair too?
It's not necessary for the center either, unless your output levels demand it. I thought it was mostly accepted that using the identical center as your fronts was the best, no-compromise solution but I understand not everyone can do that, especially if they're using towers. I use an LS50 as my center also and it never sounds like it's straining at my listening levels but remember I use 4th order slopes which removes much more bass than a 2nd order slope. For reference, a 4th order slope at 80Hz is close to a 2nd order slope at 110Hz. I usually use 90-100Hz crossovers which is closer to 120-130Hz 2nd order slopes as far as bass attenuation.
aarons915 is online now  
post #2179 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 479
Quote:
Yes but you also have to remember that Harman tests speakers full range where the bass difference is going to have a large effect on preference. I just grabbed a pair of M105 off audiogon and am in the process of auditioning them and they have more than enough bass to blend with my subs even with a 4th order 100Hz high pass on them. At that crossover, they seem to be able to play very loud and clean and I don't really see how the M106 would add anything. The M105 is better in every other measurement of smoothness or flatness, so I don't see how going bigger is better unless I'm running into some kind of output limitation with the 105s, the loudest I ever listen is around 85db so I would say they are in their comfort zone in that range
I look forward to hearing your impressions of the M105s compared to your LS50s. A large factor, of course, is usage including but not limited to room size and listening habits. It sounds like the M105s are perfect for you, and I'm jealous.

I have a smallish room and generally listen at moderate levels, but will occasionally push it. I've mentioned it before, but that is why I wanted to try the little Chane A1.4s. On paper, the XBL motor intrigued me, and I envisioned having the 5.25" mid/woof for a better directivity match, but because of its design and the resultant flatter BL curve, being able to get some extra excursion with less harmonic distortion. In practice, I was able to run them harder than the Kef Q100's they replaced. For IM distortion though a larger driver has an advantage.

As for waveguides, it's not just about controlling directivity. My Infinity center speaker is a 3-way, yet uses a waveguide, as do many other brands in 3-way and 4-way configurations. From what I understand it can help shape the tweeter's low end response and in some cases increase sensitivity.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #2180 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
Dr. Toole has stated before that there isn't conclusive evidence regarding the audibility of distortion but there are some who have tried to test it, like axiom audio in this article: https://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/distortion ,they conclude that at frequencies of 280Hz and lower, the distortion had to climb to 20% before it was audible. Even my LS50s are around 3% or less below 200Hz and the Revels I suspect are both around 1.5% or lower in those ranges.
LS50 distort so fast its ridiculous. But inaudible.
Imo, even at low frequencies, in ideal case you can hear really low distortion, however its so easy to mask that with nearly all program content you will have hard time hearing it.
I actually wanted to experiment with audibility threshold of distortion in program but unfortunately I am techonologically challenged at the moment. Maybe some day.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2181 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 05:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
head_unit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunny L.A.
Posts: 1,340
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 574 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
...I sensed that they were reluctant to attribute any credit for a better process to a manufacturer...
And/or would you attribute any reluctance to aftermath from the Bose lawsuit? Or possibly just that there are a bazillion speakers and that really you simply cannot rank them in the way CR likes to present their tests?
head_unit is offline  
post #2182 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 06:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
If you measured your X14 and X18 and used EQ to match the bass response, I suspect you'd hear that they sound identical in the bass, impact, fullness, etc
The AVR applies an EQ so that's the best I can do with what I've got. EQ'd to "Flat" as per Yamaha, I can tell a big difference. Things just sound more "real" and dynamic from the bigger driver.

Classical/electronic music and action movies, in particular, I much prefer on my X18's and even more on my BM5's (180mm/7in driver supposedly but it looks no bigger than most 6.5" woofers I've had.) The scale of the orchestra and even the subtleties of small ensembles sound more "convincing" and "immediate" somehow. Almost like a better sense of envelopment. It could all be in my head.

I've had some really small 4 inch and even 3 inch satellites and they never impressed with scale or dynamics. They sounded small and confined somehow. The most extreme example is the speakers in my MacBook, which are only good for Facetime, and barely that.

Things got better going to 5.25 bookshelves, then they improved again going to 6-7 inch monitors. I've never heard an 8 inch driver so I can't say if the improvements would continue. I've had some towers that I didn't care for, so bigger is not always better, by any means. I generally prefer monitors to floorstanders, but I think that's due to bookshelves being closer to a point-source at shorter listening distances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
It's not necessary for the center either, unless your output levels demand it. I thought it was mostly accepted that using the identical center as your fronts was the best, no-compromise solution but I understand not everyone can do that, especially if they're using towers.
Same speaker all-around is certainly ideal. I will be getting a single X18 to use as my center, unless I simply can't make it work. I think most people prefer the larger center to make dialogue more clear and intelligible. Many report that smaller centers sound anemic and make things hard to follow and understand. Being a center channel, this assumes a sub as well, of course.

If it turns out that anything bigger than a 5 inch two-way is unnecessary at sane listening levels, when using a sub, then there is a lot of wasted money out there. I find 5 inch 2-ways to be the bare minimum needed for any sense of realism and things usually start to improve from there. YMMV.

I wonder if this might be misguided on my part, though...My ears certainly prefer a larger presentation, all things equal.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 09:53 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2183 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 06:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
head_unit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunny L.A.
Posts: 1,340
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 574 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckchester View Post
So, based on these measurements, how does this speaker look?
It looks like I'm not convinced the measurements are "good"-I do not mean that in any offensive way, it's that some waviness makes me feel like you either have not a very long enough reflection-free time or you have not excluded the reflections.

Understand that a setup with 1 ms = 343 Hz of truly reflection free time, does NOT mean all the data above 343 Hz is OK. It means ideally getting a valid data point every 343 Hz IIRC. Hence peaks and dips that are really processing/algorithm artifacts, plus there is windowing applied to the data yada yada yada...and that measurement setup isn't really good below maybe 2 kHz. Even above that I *think* the rippling might continue every 343 Hz? Someone else wade in, I haven't thought about this in a long time.

You need to get out a tape measure and physically measure your measuring space. Post some pictures and we can help you figure out how much reflection-free space you really have, because that can be tricky to figure out.

I once had a setup in a drop ceiling tile, microphone 1 meter down from the 2.44 meter (8 foot) ceiling. This meant the floor reflection came [(2.44x2)-1]=3.88 meters after the direct wave. Take 3.88/(343 m/s)=0.0113 seconds --> 88 Hz. Up near the ceiling this required a clear area of about 2.4something meters radius.
head_unit is offline  
post #2184 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 07:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
The AVR applies an EQ so that's the best I can do with what I've got. EQ'd to "Flat" as per Yamaha, I can tell a big difference. Things just sound more "real" and dynamic from the bigger driver.

Classical/electronic music and action movies, in particular, I much prefer on my X18's and even more on my BM5's (180mm/7in driver supposedly but it looks no bigger than most 6.5" woofers I've had.) The scale of the orchestra and even the subtleties of small ensembles sound more "convincing" and "immediate" somehow. Almost like a better sense of envelopment. It could all be in my head.

I've had some really small 4 inch and even 3 inch satellites and they never impressed with scale or dynamics. They sounded small and confined somehow. The most extreme example is the speakers in my MacBook, which are only good for Facetime, and barely that.

Things got better going to 5.25 bookshelves, then they improved again going to 6-7 inch monitors. I've never heard an 8 inch driver so I can't say if the improvements would continue. I've had some towers that I didn't care for, so bigger is not always better, by any means. I generally prefer monitors to floostanders, but I think that's due to bookshelves being closer to a point-source at shorter listerning distances.
While you may be hearing a difference, you definitely cannot contribute it solely to a bigger driver. First of all, calibration systems in AVR are not consistent. Unless you took measurements each time you calibrated and made comparison, you can never be sure that there is a significant difference in result which can be responsible for what you are hearing. Furthermore, as you increase volume towards reference levels, distortion and compression kicks in plus AVR stays out of juice. But not many people blast reference levels and from what I recall, neither do you.
My point is, without measurements and proper interpretation, you really are just guessing.
On the other hand, if you like dynamics and want your head blown off, try some decent PA style home speakers with compression driver and huge woofer.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2185 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 07:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
My point is, without measurements and proper interpretation, you really are just guessing.
On the other hand, if you like dynamics and want your head blown off, try some decent PA style home speakers with compression driver and huge woofer.
I've had horn speakers and I'm not really a fan of the limited dispersion. It sounds too "inside the head" to me. I never listen loud. But the differences between smaller monitors and bigger ones without a sub is dramatic. With a sub, it's less dramatic, to be sure, but still very noticeable. I might be alone in this though...

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2186 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 07:33 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe, Croatia
Posts: 1,746
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1012 Post(s)
Liked: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
I've had horn speakers and I'm not really a fan of the limited dispersion. It sounds too "inside the head" to me. I never listen loud. But the differences between smaller monitors and bigger ones without a sub is dramatic. With a sub, it's less dramatic, to be sure, but still very noticeable. I might be alone in this though...
Without sub you are absolutely right. Difference between 5" and 6" can be night and day, but same can be said between two 5" or two 6" designs, since any of them can have different bass extension and rolloff. Really nothing surprising there.


As for the horns, I have no idea what you listened to but I had no such experience. Just a nice huge soundstage thanks to the limited (controlled) interaction with room.

Revel Ultima Salon 2, Revel M106, Revel C208, Yamaha P5000S, Denon X5200, Panasonic 65" VT50, Dual VBSS w Faital 18FH510
Kef LS50, Parasound New Classic, Focusrite 2i4 2nd Gen
donktard is offline  
post #2187 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 07:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 980
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 604 Post(s)
Liked: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
Without sub you are absolutely right. Difference between 5" and 6" can be night and day, but same can be said between two 5" or two 6" designs, since any of them can have different bass extension and rolloff. Really nothing surprising there.
Without a doubt. No argument there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
As for the horns, I have no idea what you listened to but I had no such experience. Just a nice huge soundstage thanks to the limited (controlled) interaction with room.
My experience with Klipsch, Hsu, and some JBL PA systems has been the opposite. The limited dispersion in the upper mids (around the crossover) makes it feel like my ears need to pop or that I have some kind of sinus pressure like being on a plane. It's like I'm wearing headphones that I can't take off. Also, fwiw, I don't equate dynamics with loudness. It's more about the difference between the softest and loudest sounds, regardless of max SPL.

It's hard to describe but I'm apparently very sensitive to the rapid acoustic SPL changes from the horn. It's not a pleasant experience for me, but many people love them, and are less sensitive to the effect. I've also never heard any state-of-the-art horn system or any state-of-the-art system for that matter.

Well actually, if you count the top-of-the-line(?) QSC system I've heard at my local Alamo Drafthouse, then I guess those might count. They sound very loud and clear, but you could still tell that there were "horns" behind that screen. Not something I'd want to listen to all day to relax.

That said, from what I've read, one's preferred dispersion characteristics is indeed a personal choice, and most people prefer wider dispersion to narrower, but that depends on room and individual tastes. I respect the things horns do well, but they aren't really for me (and I certainly haven't heard all of them so my experience is very limited.)

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 03-06-2019 at 08:13 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #2188 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 09:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 479
Quote:
Dr. Toole has stated before that there isn't conclusive evidence regarding the audibility of distortion but there are some who have tried to test it, like axiom audio in this article: https://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/distortion ,they conclude that at frequencies of 280Hz and lower, the distortion had to climb to 20% before it was audible. Even my LS50s are around 3% or less below 200Hz and the Revels I suspect are both around 1.5% or lower in those ranges.
For harmonic distortion, I'm sure the thresholds are higher especially with regular program material instead of pure tones. With a two-way, the mid-woof is reproducing a wide range of frequencies even with a sub. The components of IM distortion, frequency modulation and amplitude modulation are not harmonic to the original signals, and are considered more objectionable and detectable at lower thresholds. All else being equal, a larger driver will have less of these distortion components and they don't just occur in the lower range, but also much higher in frequency.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #2189 of 5313 Old 03-06-2019, 11:50 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
I certainly agree with that. This is basically my point, that there are many ways to skin a cat. Great measurements can certainly be obtained by 6.5" 2-ways without waveguides, despite the contrary that is often repeated.
It's certainly not impossible. However, even on the models that measure well, and behave themselves, there is a larger hole in the sound power than you would find on an equally well designed loudspeaker with an optimal waveguide. It's just physics and even when you get all the rest exactly right in terms of driver geometry, placement, cabinet design .. at a certain point physics just doesn't allow for it. But one can only know for sure when all of the needed measurements have been performed and processed. A simple horizontal off axis plot won't tell you this.

The sound power hole is why first generation of Revel Ultimas had a rear firing tweeter, essentially to even out the power response. Someone feel free to correct me on that, but that's how I remember it. These didn't have a waveguide, yet were awesome loudspeakers nonethless.
TimVG is online now  
post #2190 of 5313 Old 03-07-2019, 03:45 AM
Member
 
OldMovieNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by donktard View Post
"Waveguide" on Be models looks deeper to me, from pictures at least.
I am more curious what is that "thing" in front of tweeter doing on Be models. From my memory, those are used to disperse nasty stuff in (typically) metal dome tweeters, but I see no reason to put that in front of Be tweet with really really high breakup. I might be wrong on whats it doing though...maybe just dispersing highest frequencies in controlled manner?
I believe the main purpose of the "thing" is to protect the tweeter, and therefore humans around it, from accidental damage. Beryllium is nasty stuff.


Cheers,

OldMovieNut
OldMovieNut is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off