AVS Forum banner

10781 - 10800 of 10829 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Right woofer--wrong impedance. I'm using the 8-ohm version, which is only 1 dB less sensitive and makes crossover much easier. The main cost difference over the BMR monitor would be the cabinet cost, including manufacturing cost and shipping cost from Over There. Pricing is not set, nor is cabinet finish. The tower would be intended primarily for the domestic market, and we would not be walking a tightrope between finish tones that appeal to both sides of the Pacific. I personally would favor a dark, rich brown with something this large. As for kits, I'm kind of down on them. There are too many quality control issues that are difficult to control. But I would probably be willing to share the crossover schematics withr those willing and able to take something like this on.
Understand the hassles with all that. Are you using the Scan 22W/8851T, 8 ohm woofer then? I'm listening to the BMRs right now I'm borrowing from KEW, these are the actual units that Erin tested recently. The old PE cabs are beautiful, and match my entertainment center perfectly. They sound great! Perhaps a bit bright for my odd ears, but super clean and distortion free! Imaging is remarkable. I suspect the extra bass the bigger SS bring would make me happier in the Tower version. Would you indeed be willing to share the Tower schematics? That would be great! Perhaps enclosure volume and port dia. and length too? I'll just build a rectangular box, my woodworking skills don't extend to curved cabinets!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
Understand the hassles with all that. Are you using the Scan 22W/8851T, 8 ohm woofer then? I'm listening to the BMRs right now I'm borrowing from KEW, these are the actual units that Erin tested recently. The old PE cabs are beautiful, and match my entertainment center perfectly. They sound great! Perhaps a bit bright for my odd ears, but super clean and distortion free! Imaging is remarkable. I suspect the extra bass the bigger SS bring would make me happier in the Tower version. Would you indeed be willing to share the Tower schematics? That would be great! Perhaps enclosure volume and port dia. and length too? I'll just build a rectangular box, my woodworking skills don't extend to curved cabinets!
I'm sure we can work something out. Yes, it's the 8852T. The new BMR is voiced down slightly. I'll have a revised BMR page up on my site tomorrow that will include a full set of measurements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Right woofer--wrong impedance. I'm using the 8-ohm version, which is only 1 dB less sensitive and makes crossover much easier. The main cost difference over the BMR monitor would be the cabinet cost, including manufacturing cost and shipping cost from Over There. Pricing is not set, nor is cabinet finish. The tower would be intended primarily for the domestic market, and we would not be walking a tightrope between finish tones that appeal to both sides of the Pacific. I personally would favor a dark, rich brown with something this large. As for kits, I'm kind of down on them. There are too many quality control issues that are difficult to control. But I would probably be willing to share the crossover schematics withr those willing and able to take something like this on.
Just putting in my vote for a natural or slightly tinted walnut without the red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkydude

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I'm sure we can work something out. Yes, it's the 8852T. The new BMR is voiced down slightly. I'll have a revised BMR page up on my site tomorrow that will include a full set of measurements.
That's good to hear they will be voiced down slightly. My ears prefer the "BBC dip" if you remember that term, another design goal I've read is a 1 dB per octave drop from low to high frequencies. Here's a basic article on the physical reasons (Fletcher-Munson curves) this sounds better to most of us. I'd guess most of us do our serious listening in the 80-100 dB max range, seems to me this shows we should have a pull back in the mid and upper midrange, the 2k-6k region. I know it's pretty radical, seems everybody's design goal is ruler flat...


Sometimes this EQ is done in the music mixing process also, here's a good explanation:

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,588 Posts
That's good to hear they will be voiced down slightly. My ears prefer the "BBC dip" if you remember that term, another design goal I've read is a 1 dB per octave drop from low to high frequencies. Here's a basic article on the physical reasons (Fletcher-Munson curves) this sounds better to most of us. I'd guess most of us do our serious listening in the 80-100 dB max range, seems to me this shows we should have a pull back in the mid and upper midrange, the 2k-6k region. I know it's pretty radical, seems everybody's design goal is ruler flat...


Sometimes this EQ is done in the music mixing process also, here's a good explanation:

.
Kind of...the 1 dB per octave target is an in-room measurement caused by the narrowing directivity of higher frequencies. Anechoically, the speaker should measure mostly flat within the listening window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
Kind of...the 1 dB per octave target is an in-room measurement caused by the narrowing directivity of higher frequencies. Anechoically, the speaker should measure mostly flat within the listening window.
Right And the "BBC" dip is unrelated to the normal downward slope of the room response. The whole issue is very controversial and is swamped by other factors. I normally wouldn't even consider lowering the anechoic response in the highs, but the BMR's are very unusual speakers in terms of the evenness and breadth of its horizontal dispersion. Further, while it's true that the ear is particularly sensitive to frequencies in the 3 kHz region, that's just as true when you go to a live concert, or listen to someone playing an instrument or singing in your living room. The purpose of a loudspeaker is to recreate the live experience, not doctor it. Playback at very low volumes is another issue, and one that should be addressed at the line level, not speaker level, if at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,588 Posts
Yes the BMR is an interesting example. As Dennis mentioned, it doesn't meet the 1 dB / octave slope because its dispersion is so wide that an omni mic is going to pick up more of the high frequencies being reflected back at it. It looks a little bit bright on measurements compared to other non-ribbon or even 2-way speakers (some of that width is coming from the small midrange). It isn't 100% clear to me if we would then hear that as well. Logic would seem to dictate that we would hear those reflections, but I haven't heard the BMR so I can't say from experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
887 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
If I had the room for them, I sure would. Right now I have a narrow room benefiting from waveguided speakers, and a more open and reflective room but which the use case is calling for towers and no sub. If there is ever a 3rd system..
Can you explain the significance of waveguided speakers as opposed to the wide dispersion on the BMR?
Does it come down to room type/shape?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Can you explain the significance of waveguided speakers as opposed to the wide dispersion on the BMR?
Does it come down to room type/shape?
A waveguide controls the dispersion in a specific radiation pattern which helps avoid room reflections as well as it aids in keeping a proper polar response. The BMR has fantastic polar response, but may require more attention to room treatment. Earl Geddes has a lot of information about controlled directivity and small room acoustics on his website. I think it’s best explained there and definitely worthwhile to read up on.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
A waveguide controls the dispersion in a specific radiation pattern which helps avoid room reflections as well as it aids in keeping a proper polar response. The BMR has fantastic polar response, but may require more attention to room treatment. Earl Geddes has a lot of information about controlled directivity and small room acoustics on his website. I think it’s best explained there and definitely worthwhile to read up on.

Thanks for this.... Appreciate it. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Right And the "BBC" dip is unrelated to the normal downward slope of the room response. The whole issue is very controversial and is swamped by other factors. I normally wouldn't even consider lowering the anechoic response in the highs, but the BMR's are very unusual speakers in terms of the evenness and breadth of its horizontal dispersion. Further, while it's true that the ear is particularly sensitive to frequencies in the 3 kHz region, that's just as true when you go to a live concert, or listen to someone playing an instrument or singing in your living room. The purpose of a loudspeaker is to recreate the live experience, not doctor it. Playback at very low volumes is another issue, and one that should be addressed at the line level, not speaker level, if at all.
Good point about the live concert comparison, but I hear more bass; breathy, tactile presence at a concert than I hear from most speakers. It seems mid to higher frequencies are better, more accurately reproduced by typical speaker drivers, but it's much harder to move the air in the lower frequencies like I hear with live music. Perhaps it's the physics, most lower frequencies are generated by larger structures; drums, acoustic double bass, piano fretboard, etc. I think it's much harder to realistically reproduce these with the relatively small drivers in a standard type speaker, the smaller the driver, the further excursion required out to move the equivalent air for an approximation of the sound wave.

My KEF LS50s are a prime example, they sound quite good for most music until you get significant LF requirements. They can put out an amazing amount of sound for the size of the midbass driver, but its LF output doesn't sound convincing to me. When I close my eyes and listen, and try to hear what things sound most like, and least like, what the real instruments would sound like in a room, it's mostly the LF that sounds least convincing to me for most (good) speakers. I've never heard the Phil 3s, but years ago heard a Fried transmission line speaker that put out wonderful, rich, deep, effortless bass. But pretty low WAF for these typically huge speakers...

When I go the the symphony, I always prefer to be up closer that the "optimal" front orchestra seats, to hear the music more viscerally. (and also to check out the artists more closely ;-)

Here's a question, I wonder if most live concerts (from classical to rock) actually measure a flat frequency response if you had a spectrum analyser there to measure? I really have no idea, never tried to measure it. I sing in a renaissance choral group, and have recorded our concerts with decent flash disk recorders and mikes, and I always find the recorded sound much drier than the actual experience in the concert hall, so I always EQ the bass up for the CDs I burn for the group. But I'm sure there are much more knowledgeable folks than me on this in this group. Sorry this has wandered a bit off topic, if I should post in another forum please LMK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
Good point about the live concert comparison, but I hear more bass; breathy, tactile presence at a concert than I hear from most speakers. It seems mid to higher frequencies are better, more accurately reproduced by typical speaker drivers, but it's much harder to move the air in the lower frequencies like I hear with live music. Perhaps it's the physics, most lower frequencies are generated by larger structures; drums, acoustic double bass, piano fretboard, etc. I think it's much harder to realistically reproduce these with the relatively small drivers in a standard type speaker, the smaller the driver, the further excursion required out to move the equivalent air for an approximation of the sound wave.

My KEF LS50s are a prime example, they sound quite good for most music until you get significant LF requirements. They can put out an amazing amount of sound for the size of the midbass driver, but its LF output doesn't sound convincing to me. When I close my eyes and listen, and try to hear what things sound most like, and least like, what the real instruments would sound like in a room, it's mostly the LF that sounds least convincing to me for most (good) speakers. I've never heard the Phil 3s, but years ago heard a Fried transmission line speaker that put out wonderful, rich, deep, effortless bass. But pretty low WAF for these typically huge speakers...

When I go the the symphony, I always prefer to be up closer that the "optimal" front orchestra seats, to hear the music more viscerally. (and also to check out the artists more closely ;-)

Here's a question, I wonder if most live concerts (from classical to rock) actually measure a flat frequency response if you had a spectrum analyser there to measure? I really have no idea, never tried to measure it. I sing in a renaissance choral group, and have recorded our concerts with decent flash disk recorders and mikes, and I always find the recorded sound much drier than the actual experience in the concert hall, so I always EQ the bass up for the CDs I burn for the group. But I'm sure there are much more knowledgeable folks than me on this in this group. Sorry this has wandered a bit off topic, if I should post in another forum please LMK.
Bass reproduction in the home is always problematic. Depending on the source material, the woofers might not be able to move enough air cleanly to produce what you hear live. And if the speakers are moving lots of air, there will be room modes that can still play havoc with playback. Your question about whether live sound production at a concert is "flat" really doesn't have any meaning. The spectral balance will almost certainly not measure flat. If that were the case, every instrument would have to produce the same overtone series, be playing at exactly the same volume, and every instrument would have to be playing at once. The purpose of flat speaker response is to reproduce the "uneven" recorded event with the right degree of unevenness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,439 Posts
Good point about the live concert comparison, but I hear more bass; breathy, tactile presence at a concert than I hear from most speakers. It seems mid to higher frequencies are better, more accurately reproduced by typical speaker drivers, but it's much harder to move the air in the lower frequencies like I hear with live music. Perhaps it's the physics, most lower frequencies are generated by larger structures; drums, acoustic double bass, piano fretboard, etc. I think it's much harder to realistically reproduce these with the relatively small drivers in a standard type speaker, the smaller the driver, the further excursion required out to move the equivalent air for an approximation of the sound wave.

When I go the the symphony, I always prefer to be up closer that the "optimal" front orchestra seats, to hear the music more viscerally. (and also to check out the artists more closely ;-)

Here's a question, I wonder if most live concerts (from classical to rock) actually measure a flat frequency response if you had a spectrum analyser there to measure? I really have no idea, never tried to measure it. I sing in a renaissance choral group, and have recorded our concerts with decent flash disk recorders and mikes, and I always find the recorded sound much drier than the actual experience in the concert hall, so I always EQ the bass up for the CDs I burn for the group. But I'm sure there are much more knowledgeable folks than me on this in this group. Sorry this has wandered a bit off topic, if I should post in another forum please LMK.
The reason live "sounds better" is because of the large space, the fact that there is almost no limit to the dynamic range and it's a direct source. The limitations in the home are exactly those three. Given space, an unlimited dynamic recording and lots of power or high efficiency of the speakers, chances are you'd get much better sound in the home (outside of unamplified symphonic music) than with most PA systems - most of which I find are not very good to my ears. As I've cried out for years, it's really bad mastering that most recordings don't sound very good. But recording companies and recording engineers just simply don't care.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,588 Posts
Here's a question, I wonder if most live concerts (from classical to rock) actually measure a flat frequency response if you had a spectrum analyser there to measure?
In my experience, it seems many setups juice the kick drum for extra effect. In my mind I see a hump there, but even though I'm a nerd, I'm not that much of a nerd to bring measurement gear with me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
Dennis, realizing that they are two completely different critters, can you make any comparisons between the performance of the NEO8 from the Phil3 and the BMR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
646 Posts
Dennis, realizing that they are two completely different critters, can you make any comparisons between the performance of the NEO8 from the Phil3 and the BMR?
They sound very similar, even when the Neo is operating in dipole fashion through an open back, as on the Phil 3. I think the reason is that the BMR's dispersion is so much wider than the Neo's that the sound staging advantage of an open back pretty much matches the dispersion advantage of the BMR. I can't detect any difference in depth of sound staging between the Phil 3 and the BMR.
 
10781 - 10800 of 10829 Posts
Top