How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 98 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6380Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #2911 of 5318 Old 06-02-2019, 07:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
It should be noted: These are not the Jim Thiel time/phase coherent designs, but the ones that came after - designed by Mark Mason who came from what one might call "the NRC-school" of design (I just noted that those who used the NRC facilities tended to converge on some design principles).



The Mason-designed Thiels, while they were briefly in the marketplace, actually got very good reviews and measured really well! In fact, more "textbook" well than Jim Thiel's designs IIRC. (And I'm a fan of Jim Thiel's speakers, as I own some).
Yeah. You are correct. Speakers seem to be new in their boxes. Has anyone bought speakers in an auction? How do I arrange to get them shipped from Tennessee to Southern CA? Auctioneer is not taking responsibility for shipping.

I am particularly interested in the center channel speaker TC1. Does anyone have a first hand experience with this Thiel speaker? What would be a fair price for this speaker?

Last edited by SouthernCA; 06-02-2019 at 07:20 PM.
SouthernCA is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2912 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 07:47 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Would someone please direct me to a good spinorama for the Studio2 speaker? My searches have not really turned anything up. I'm going to audition the Studio2 on Friday and I want to gather some additional information. Thanx!

Playback: Ayre QX-5 Twenty, Ayre KX-5 Twenty, Ayre VX-5 Twenty, Revel Studio2; Source: Synology NAS, Sonore opticalModule (2X), Sonore ultraRendu (MPD), Sonore ultraDigital (S/PDIF out to DAC); RealTraps acoustic products, Iconoclast Cables by Belden
tortuga_Bob is offline  
post #2913 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 08:44 AM
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 tortuga_Bob View Post
Would someone please direct me to a good spinorama for the Studio2 speaker? My searches have not really turned anything up. I'm going to audition the Studio2 on Friday and I want to gather some additional information. Thanx!
Here's a compilation of all spinoramas on the Revel Ultima line

https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com...el-ultima.html
TimVG is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2914 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 09:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Question

How come the 1999 graph (pic 1) looks better than the 2019 graph (pic 2)?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Spin - Revel Ultima Studio.png
Views:	75
Size:	131.6 KB
ID:	2578816   Click image for larger version

Name:	Spin - Revel Ultima Studio (re-measured in 2019).png
Views:	76
Size:	47.4 KB
ID:	2578818  
BufordTJustice likes this.

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #2915 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 09:12 AM
Newbie
 
300z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Send a message via Skype™ to 300z
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic View Post
How come the 1999 graph (pic 1) looks better than the 2019 graph (pic 2)?
Scaling? One graph uses 10dB/div while the other uses 5dB/div.
300z is offline  
post #2916 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 09:13 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Sarasota, FL
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Here's a compilation of all spinoramas on the Revel Ultima line

Perfect! Thank you for the quick response.
tortuga_Bob is offline  
post #2917 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 05:30 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: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300z View Post
Scaling? One graph uses 10dB/div while the other uses 5dB/div.
Whoa! Both graphs use the same vertical scaling. One has labels on the 5 dB incremental lines, the other has labels on only the 10 dB incremental lines. Compare the spacing of lines 10 dB apart - they would be exactly the same if both images had exactly the same scaling - it is hard to tell without importing the curves into a graphics program, scaling and overlying them - which I do for all of the measurements shown in my books and papers. The spacing of the curves on the graphs are essentially the same - i.e. same vertical scaling.

Differences between the detailed shapes of the curves reflect different measurement systems many years apart with different anechoic chamber setups and calibrations. Were the measurements on the same loudspeaker? We don't know. Small production variations are impossible to prevent - it is a fact of life in the loudspeaker world. That is why the Ultima products are individually tweaked at the end of the production line.

All that said, both sets of curves describe loudspeakers that will sound very similar and very good.
300z likes this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2918 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 05:56 PM
Newbie
 
300z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 14
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Send a message via Skype™ to 300z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Whoa! Both graphs use the same vertical scaling. One has labels on the 5 dB incremental lines, the other has labels on only the 10 dB incremental lines. Compare the spacing of lines 10 dB apart - they would be exactly the same if both images had exactly the same scaling.
That's true, I missed that, my bad.
300z is offline  
post #2919 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 06:19 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: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by 300z View Post
That's true, I missed that, my bad.
OK. I made the effort, imported both curves into Adobe Illustrator, which I used to create all of the illustrations in my books, and superimposed them at the same scale. It is a bit of a mess because I cannot extract the individual curves without more effort than I want to put into this exercise.

The most useful indicator is the listening window curve - an average of nine curves measured in a +/- 30 deg hor, +/- 10 deg vertical window. It is in green in both measurements and one can see that they are almost identical in both measurements. The very low bass is different because of chamber calibration differences - the more recent data should be more accurate. The errors in the older data should not have been that bad - a puzzle.

So, there are no scaling differences in the data, and the curves are so similar that I expect that it was indeed the same loudspeaker sample. Differences are due to improved data acquisition and processing. No embarrassment - that's progress.

EDIT: The low bass measurements on "tall" loudspeakers is difficult in a spinorma. I explained this much earlier in this thread. So, I will modify my comment to simply say that any visible differences may be due to differences in chamber calibration (not very likely) or differences in loudspeaker positioning in the acquisition of the two-orbit data sets (70 measurements in all). In any case it is the sound power curve that is likely to be the most reliable indicator of true bass output.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Two measurement comparison.jpg
Views:	79
Size:	653.9 KB
ID:	2578928  
CruelInventions, wloeb and 300z like this.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 06-11-2019 at 06:30 PM.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2920 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 08:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Thank you for the explanation Dr.Toole. I would think 20 years of progress would create a flatter curve. Why bother upgrading a speaker if there is no measurable improvement? Is the 2019 model more efficient than the 1999 model? In this situation, how does a person justify replacing a 1999 model with a 2019 model?

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #2921 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 08:21 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mr.SoftDome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,553
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 667 Post(s)
Liked: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic View Post
Thank you for the explanation Dr.Toole. I would think 20 years of progress would create a flatter curve. Why bother upgrading a speaker if there is no measurable improvement? Is the 2019 model more efficient than the 1999 model? In this situation, how does a person justify replacing a 1999 model with a 2019 model?
Boredom?
Mr.SoftDome is offline  
post #2922 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 08:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 193
No. The original link said the graphs represent 2 different speakers from 1999 and 2019. The 1999 graph looks better to me. Dr. Toole said "both sets of curves describe loudspeakers that will sound very similar and very good." 20 years of technology and the newer speaker measured worse than the older speaker. If I owned the 1999 speaker, then there is no way I would upgrade to the 2019 speaker unless it got significantly louder or I could make a net profit from selling the 1999 speakers.

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #2923 of 5318 Old 06-11-2019, 09:06 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: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic View Post
Thank you for the explanation Dr.Toole. I would think 20 years of progress would create a flatter curve. Why bother upgrading a speaker if there is no measurable improvement? Is the 2019 model more efficient than the 1999 model? In this situation, how does a person justify replacing a 1999 model with a 2019 model?
The second measurement may have been made in 2019, but it was of the old design - look at the accompanying picture. I have no idea why the measurement was made - perhaps as a test of the new measurement system. As I said, those two measurements were of the same (old) loudspeaker.

The current Ulltima Studio2 is a different loudspeaker, and it is an improvement. A spinorama on it and other Revels is in Figure 12.1 in the third edition of my book. The performance improvement is evident.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2924 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 12:27 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Dr Toole, I have a question about the Olive experiments described in your book. The model produced when the number of speakers tested was expanded to 70 has a correlation coefficient of .86. No problem there.

Dr Olive has said in a few places that this model allows the prediction of listening test preference rating from the calculated rating with 86 % accuracy.
It isnt really clear to me what this statement actually means .
Could you possibly clarify on this .
Could you also describe how the 86% is calculated and its relationship to the .86 correlation coefficient.
Thanks
Mike
MMacka is offline  
post #2925 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 05:07 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,287
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1353 Post(s)
Liked: 1283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The second measurement may have been made in 2019, but it was of the old design - look at the accompanying picture. I have no idea why the measurement was made - perhaps as a test of the new measurement system. As I said, those two measurements were of the same (old) loudspeaker.
Yes, both are measurements of the original Studio pictured in the upper right corner. Frankly, I find them impressive for the vintage.

Quote:
The current Ulltima Studio2 is a different loudspeaker, and it is an improvement. A spinorama on it and other Revels is in Figure 12.1 in the third edition of my book. The performance improvement is evident.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #2926 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 06:49 AM
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: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMacka View Post
Dr Toole, I have a question about the Olive experiments described in your book. The model produced when the number of speakers tested was expanded to 70 has a correlation coefficient of .86. No problem there.

Dr Olive has said in a few places that this model allows the prediction of listening test preference rating from the calculated rating with 86 % accuracy.
It isnt really clear to me what this statement actually means .
Could you possibly clarify on this .
Could you also describe how the 86% is calculated and its relationship to the .86 correlation coefficient.
Thanks
Mike
You would have to check with Sean Olive to know why he used percent instead of correlation coefficient - which is of course what it really is.

As for how it was calculated, see:
Olive, S.E. (2004a). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 1 – listening test results”, 116th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6113.
Olive, S.E. (2004b). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 2 – development of the model”, 117th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6190.

As you have no doubt read, when bass extension was similar (all bookshelf speakers) the correlation coefficient was 0.996 - i.e. essentially perfect prediction of double-blind subjective ratings from processing anechoic spinorama data. The variable bass extension of the mixture of floor standers and bookshelf speakers in the population of 70 products reduced that to 0.86. The factor weighting indicated that bass accounts for about 30% of an overall subjective sound quality rating, so when that varies, so do the ratings, even if other factors are equal.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2927 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 07:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 665
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 227 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
Yes, both are measurements of the original Studio pictured in the upper right corner. Frankly, I find them impressive for the vintage.

I agree! The little speaker pictures were not showing up yesterday. The last 2 graphs in the link should have been the 1999 Studio and the 2007 Studio2, not the same same speaker measured 20 years apart. The Studio2 is a definite improvement over the Studio. The Studio looks better than the Studio2 tho'. Thank you again Dr. Toole!

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic is offline  
post #2928 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 07:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,887
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
You would have to check with Sean Olive to know why he used percent instead of correlation coefficient - which is of course what it really is.

As for how it was calculated, see:
Olive, S.E. (2004a). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 1 – listening test results”, 116th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6113.
Olive, S.E. (2004b). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 2 – development of the model”, 117th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6190.

As you have no doubt read, when bass extension was similar (all bookshelf speakers) the correlation coefficient was 0.996 - i.e. essentially perfect prediction of double-blind subjective ratings from processing anechoic spinorama data. The variable bass extension of the mixture of floor standers and bookshelf speakers in the population of 70 products reduced that to 0.86. The factor weighting indicated that bass accounts for about 30% of an overall subjective sound quality rating, so when that varies, so do the ratings, even if other factors are equal.
This is very interesting, and reinforces my own methodology. Since I cross to subs, I evaluate speakers with crossover enabled, and subs on and off. I do not bother auditioning speakers full range, because I have experienced how bass extension can completely change your opinion of a speaker, to the point where you forgive flaws in the treble more easily.
Muza, Floyd Toole, MMacka and 1 others like this.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is offline  
post #2929 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 04:09 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
You would have to check with Sean Olive to know why he used percent instead of correlation coefficient - which is of course what it really is.

As for how it was calculated, see:
Olive, S.E. (2004a). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 1 – listening test results”, 116th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6113.
Olive, S.E. (2004b). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 2 – development of the model”, 117th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6190.

As you have no doubt read, when bass extension was similar (all bookshelf speakers) the correlation coefficient was 0.996 - i.e. essentially perfect prediction of double-blind subjective ratings from processing anechoic spinorama data. The variable bass extension of the mixture of floor standers and bookshelf speakers in the population of 70 products reduced that to 0.86. The factor weighting indicated that bass accounts for about 30% of an overall subjective sound quality rating, so when that varies, so do the ratings, even if other factors are equal.
Thanks Dr Toole. Can anyone suggest how I can ask Dr Olive .
MMacka is offline  
post #2930 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 04:25 PM
Member
 
SDX-LV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
OK. I made the effort, imported both curves into Adobe Illustrator, which I used to create all of the illustrations in my books, and superimposed them at the same scale. It is a bit of a mess because I cannot extract the individual curves without more effort than I want to put into this exercise.

The most useful indicator is the listening window curve - an average of nine curves measured in a +/- 30 deg hor, +/- 10 deg vertical window. It is in green in both measurements and one can see that they are almost identical in both measurements. The very low bass is different because of chamber calibration differences - the more recent data should be more accurate. The errors in the older data should not have been that bad - a puzzle.

So, there are no scaling differences in the data, and the curves are so similar that I expect that it was indeed the same loudspeaker sample. Differences are due to improved data acquisition and processing. No embarrassment - that's progress.

EDIT: The low bass measurements on "tall" loudspeakers is difficult in a spinorma. I explained this much earlier in this thread. So, I will modify my comment to simply say that any visible differences may be due to differences in chamber calibration (not very likely) or differences in loudspeaker positioning in the acquisition of the two-orbit data sets (70 measurements in all). In any case it is the sound power curve that is likely to be the most reliable indicator of true bass output.
Just a small note:
The full-resolution data at https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/ is already scaled and alligned to be directly comparable (see here). The data is as detailed as the graphs we can find on the internet and then it is manually scaled to make as fair comparison as possible.

Dr. Toole, as you processed the data in Adobe Illustrator yourself, could you please share the source measurements for Figure 12.1 - JBL Arena 120? It is a remarkable speaker for its price category and it would be great to make this data more broadly visible on the internet. In fact thare are no available measurements for any speakers from JBL Arena or Studio lines.
sneakmasterG and TimVG like this.
SDX-LV is offline  
post #2931 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 05:42 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 MMacka View Post
Thanks Dr Toole. Can anyone suggest how I can ask Dr Olive .
we could try @SoundnWine which is Dr Olive's avs profile.
TimVG is offline  
post #2932 of 5318 Old 06-12-2019, 06:20 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 4
Thanks Tim

@SoundnWine
Dr Olive, I have a question about your work correlating observed sound preference with calculated sound preferences.
In Dr Tooles book he says that when this was examined using 70 loudspeakers you came up with a model that provided a .86
correlation coefficient between the two variables. So far so good.

I have seen you quoted as saying you could " correlate and predict sound quality with 86% accuracy "

This doesnt seem to be the same thing so it isnt clear to me what this statement means and how it is related or derived from the correlation coefficient .
Could you possibly expand on what you mean by this statement and how that is related to or derived from the .86 correlation coeficient.
Thanks
Mike
MMacka is offline  
post #2933 of 5318 Old 06-13-2019, 09:37 AM
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: 3076
As requested: the JBL Arena 120
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Arena 120 4pi SP.gif
Views:	104
Size:	29.9 KB
ID:	2579520  
sneakmasterG and fill35U like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2934 of 5318 Old 06-13-2019, 01:29 PM
Member
 
SDX-LV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
As requested: the JBL Arena 120
Thank you very much!
It is also so much easier to work with a .gif file that does not have the compression artefacts of the .jpg files of most Harman measurements found on the Internet

Looking at the measurements of Arena 120 I assume that it benefits both from high 2.5 kHz crossover and a small woofer element to achieve the impressive smoothness of the curves. Other Arena speakers are likely not as outstanding as they use bigger woofers. One more reason why given the measurements people have the power to seek out and pick the great speakers out there. If there is data for other Speakers in Arena, Stage or Studio families it would be interesting to see if any other affordable JBL speaker is as good as Arena 120.

BTW, JBL Arena series is almost gone - replaced by Stage series that has completely different drivers. We can only hope they are actually better than their Arena predecessors (no data as usual).
SDX-LV is offline  
post #2935 of 5318 Old 06-13-2019, 01:56 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: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDX-LV View Post
Thank you very much!
It is also so much easier to work with a .gif file that does not have the compression artefacts of the .jpg files of most Harman measurements found on the Internet

Looking at the measurements of Arena 120 I assume that it benefits both from high 2.5 kHz crossover and a small woofer element to achieve the impressive smoothness of the curves. Other Arena speakers are likely not as outstanding as they use bigger woofers. One more reason why given the measurements people have the power to seek out and pick the great speakers out there. If there is data for other Speakers in Arena, Stage or Studio families it would be interesting to see if any other affordable JBL speaker is as good as Arena 120.

BTW, JBL Arena series is almost gone - replaced by Stage series that has completely different drivers. We can only hope they are actually better than their Arena predecessors (no data as usual).
As I am retired I am not aware of JBL product planning, but there is no doubt that the Arena 120 is uncommonly good at the price, which I now see is $140/pr "reconditioned" (?). Just be aware that the spinorama shown is a 4 pi measurement and this speaker is advertised as being useful on a wall (2 pi). It is definitely NOT optimized for on-wall mounting. There will be a suckout in the 300-500 Hz range - as would be the case with any bookshelf speaker mounted directly on a wall - see Figure 9.8 in my book for a conventionally deep bookshelf. The frequency of the suckout depends on the thickness/depth of the speaker. Use it as you would use a normal bookshelf speaker.

That said, add a subwoofer to this inexpensive speaker, preferably using bass management (to get a high-pass filter) crossing over higher than 80 Hz, and be prepared for some remarkably neutral sound. The main limitation will be power output.
Muza, Gooddoc and Molon_Labe like this.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 06-15-2019 at 08:46 AM.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #2936 of 5318 Old 06-14-2019, 05:39 PM
Member
 
Makav3li's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 177
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
As requested: the JBL Arena 120
Any chance that we'll ever see spins for the JBL 590's?
Makav3li is online now  
post #2937 of 5318 Old 06-15-2019, 08:12 AM
Member
 
SDX-LV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Makav3li View Post
Any chance that we'll ever see spins for the JBL 590's?
No

Well actually JBL is not selling Studio 5 series in Europe already for a while and in other markets there are a few models still in stock. Perhaps when they are finally fully retired someone will leak their measurements to motivate people to upgrade? That is assuming JBL Studio 5 series ever had proper Spinorama measurements done at all... Nice speakers, but probably more of the art than a science school.

BTW, I am just like you - on the top of my wishlist is a Spin for JBL Studio 580, because guess what - I bought them with a naive hope that all post year 2000 Harman speakers would certainly be better than the much cheaper Infinity speakers that had great Spins and were winning blind listening tests already around the year 2000 Only later I learned that Studio 5 series is possibly the very last family of passive speakers from Harman that should NOT be viewed as more affordable Revels

On this subject I would love to see spins for the modern harman&kardon Citation series speakers - I like their design, but I suspect they have nothing in common with Revels either.

Last edited by SDX-LV; 06-16-2019 at 01:11 AM. Reason: mening-breaking word mistakes
SDX-LV is offline  
post #2938 of 5318 Old 06-19-2019, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,401
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 288
New B&W 603 speaker review in audioholics shows the following frequency response. Clearly not enough data but still it shows the design intent.

Any comments on how it will sound and why?Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	62
Size:	43.3 KB
ID:	2581940

5dB per line in vertical Axis and a dip at 2k.

And here it the review

https://www.audioholics.com/tower-sp...eviews/b-w-603

Last edited by SouthernCA; 06-19-2019 at 10:42 AM.
SouthernCA is offline  
post #2939 of 5318 Old 06-19-2019, 12:39 PM
Senior Member
 
SunByrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pearland, TX
Posts: 272
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post
New B&W 603 speaker review in audioholics shows the following frequency response. Clearly not enough data but still it shows the design intent.

Any comments on how it will sound and why?
It looks like it will sound how I think most B&W speakers sound: scooped-out mids, especially upper mids. My favorite comment ever from a reviewer (I do so wish I could remember who said this originally so I could give appropriate credit): they are like listening to music with a heavy beige quilt draped between you and the music.

I know some people love B&Ws, but I have never heard one that I thought was competitive in its price class, and I'm pretty sure it's because of the V-shaped response. The FR graph (especially on-axis) looks terrible, like they're not even trying--that dip at 2K is something like 7dB below the average and is around 14dB less than the peak at 9K. 14dB! That's crazy.

Loved this comment in the review: "These speakers will take on a fairly different sound character depending on the angle they are listened to." Translation: you need to be at 30deg off-axis to keep your ears from bleeding from the pushed treble.

The measurements don't provide a complete spinorama, but if we had those, I bet they would show that the directivity index on these speakers is a disaster.

Also, the impedance curves are also straight-up awful—these are going to be wicked to drive. Here's what you can be getting for that kind of money.

I'm totally underwhelmed by these measurements from speakers that go for $1800/pair. I bet both the PSB Imagine X1T and the QAcoustics Concept 40 measure better than these (except maybe bass extension) at about half the price (probably add the Chane A5.4 and Emotiva T2 to that class as well). And at a similar price, I'm positive the Revel F35 and the Ascend Sierra Tower (and surely many others) measure much better. So color me underwhelmed.

_____
Study: Schiit Bifrost Multibit > Yamaha A-S500 > Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2/Emotiva S8
Living Room HT: Oppo BDP-83 > Denon X3400H > PSB Image 4T/8C/S50/Rythmik L22
Office: Schiit Modi 3 > NAD C740 > Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1 NrT
Bedroom: Onkyo TX-8050 > PSB Image 1B/SubSonic5
SunByrne is offline  
post #2940 of 5318 Old 06-19-2019, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
tonygeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: America's (real) hometown
Posts: 6,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunByrne View Post
It looks like it will sound how I think most B&W speakers sound: scooped-out mids, especially upper mids. My favorite comment ever from a reviewer (I do so wish I could remember who said this originally so I could give appropriate credit): they are like listening to music with a heavy beige quilt draped between you and the music.

I know some people love B&Ws, but I have never heard one that I thought was competitive in its price class, and I'm pretty sure it's because of the V-shaped response. The FR graph (especially on-axis) looks terrible, like they're not even trying--that dip at 2K is something like 7dB below the average and is around 14dB less than the peak at 9K. 14dB! That's crazy.

Loved this comment in the review: "These speakers will take on a fairly different sound character depending on the angle they are listened to." Translation: you need to be at 30deg off-axis to keep your ears from bleeding from the pushed treble.

The measurements don't provide a complete spinorama, but if we had those, I bet they would show that the directivity index on these speakers is a disaster.

Also, the impedance curves are also straight-up awful—these are going to be wicked to drive. Here's what you can be getting for that kind of money.

I'm totally underwhelmed by these measurements from speakers that go for $1800/pair. I bet both the PSB Imagine X1T and the QAcoustics Concept 40 measure better than these (except maybe bass extension) at about half the price (probably add the Chane A5.4 and Emotiva T2 to that class as well). And at a similar price, I'm positive the Revel F35 and the Ascend Sierra Tower (and surely many others) measure much better. So color me underwhelmed.
Very good comments re the B&Ws. So why do they design speakers with this type of response? While they may stand out in a demo, long term satisfaction is going to be compromised. I know this having succumbed to their marketing in the past. Fortunately, I have left those days way behind me.

Tony

In search of the Holy Grail.
tonygeno 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