Eeelco,
i was not aware of the Acoustic Research "MGC1" from 1985 before you mentioned it (Thanks!):
http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/...9_2015/post-100522-0-97400500-1442780802.jpeg
http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/...9_2015/post-100522-0-58255100-1442771849.jpeg
http://www.stereophile.com/content/acoustic-research-mgc-1-loudspeaker#SqaV6Z1kqawl6hAg.97
Truly an interesting piece of technical history in this field ... and shows a creative way of thinking and seriously/consequently tackling design goals one has set to himself using recent/available technology of that time. I personally feel it is "quite US-american" in this respect and i like it as an approach independently from what the results may be in detail: It is clearly "optimal listening" motivated and "made by audiofreaks for audiofreaks".
There may be some conceptual overlap between the "narrow direct" modes of both speakers, but AFAIK there is no mode in the B&O corresponding to the delayed side firing/reflecting "ambience" speakers as they are a subsystem of the AR.
The side and rear facing mid and high range drivers in the B&O are used for "rotation" of the "wide" pattern mode, e.g. in case someone is sitting and listening even behind the speakers ... or those drivers are used to form a "pseudo omnidirectional" pattern, which is an additional mode.
As we learned here before (thank you Charles ...), B&O customers are supposed to live in "special" places, that are assumed to cause also "special" needs, the inhabitants/customers ought to have (or even ought to develop ...).
It's close to a schoolbook-like definition IMO of what "Industrial Design" is about.
Last edited:
Doug Schneider of SoundStage HiFi thinks that Beolab 90 is the best product at CES 2016!
SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - The Best of CES 2016
SoundStage! Hi-Fi | SoundStageHiFi.com - The Best of CES 2016
"And as I stated in my article about the 90s at CES 2016, the midrange had such a richness that it could have fooled me into thinking there were little tube amps inside, not the solid-state class-D amplifiers actually used."
OMG "sounds like tube amps inside" must be good.
A good deed for every day IMO: Hit a HiFi journalist (doesn't matter who he is exactly, just HiFi journalist is reason enough ... ).
Last edited:
Does that mean we'd have to hit out own Patrick Bateman too? 
Here's a brief review:
I've been going to audio shows for nearly twenty years now. In general, I've found that 80% of the speakers there are about as good as what you'd get at Best Buy, maybe a bit worse. I've noticed that you see a lot of names come and go.
The names that you see year-in-and-year-out tend to sell products that are consistently good. I've never heard a bad demo from Kef, Dynaudio, or Vandersteen. I'm not saying that they're GREAT, but they're consistently good, and once in a while, they're great.
One trend that I've noticed, particularly in the last five years, is that the overall quality of loudspeakers is getting very good. For instance, at the 2005 CES I'd say that most of the speakers I heard were average to mediocre. At the 2016 CES, most speakers sounded good.
I think there's a downside to this consistency though; a LOT of speakers sounded very very similar. For instance, both Kef and Wharfedale were demoing a modestly prices coincident speaker, and if I had a blindfold on I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
I think what's happening here is that the quality of measurement software, and general knowledge of psychoacoustics is getting so good, even average and inexpensive speakers are light years beyond what we had twenty years ago.
Pioneer's $100 speakers come to mind; back in the 90s something like this would come in a nicer cabinet and it would cost $1000.
In summary:
I listened to dozens of speakers at CES 2016, and many of them were quite good. We're in a bit of a 'golden age' when it comes to loudspeakers, there's a lot of good stuff that doesn't cost a lot.
But I didn't see a lot that pushed any boundaries.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The Nola Brio Trio really grabbed my attention. It has a lot in common with the LX Mini. I built myself an 'homage' to the LX Mini, and the Brio Trio reminded me a lot of my project, but the Nola sounds better. The speakers produce a soundstage which stretches well beyond their boundaries, and due to the tiny cabinets, they really disappear.
After a few hours of listening to various systems, listening fatigue was really setting in. For instance, I gave the Genesis line arrays a second listen, and though I loved them earlier in the day, I found that they weren't quite as good later in the day. I chalked it up to fatigue.
With less than ninety minutes left in the day, I made the trek over to Bang & Olufsen. My main goal wasn't to hear the Beolab 90s; I actually wanted to hear the Beolab 5s, as I've invested a lot of effort into acoustic lenses based on the Beolab.
By the way, I want to apologize for the length of this post. I wanted to put my experience with the Beolab into perspective. I don't want people thinking that it was the only speaker that I listened to at CES, or that I've only listened to a handful of world-class speakers. I've listened to hundreds, and I even bought a pair based on demos at audio shows. (I bought my Gedlee Summas based on a demo that Earl did at the 2005 RMAF.)
Let's cut to the chase here. The Beolab 90 is an industry-changing speaker. In my life I can count on one hand the speakers that are able to make the room 'disappear.' The first time I experienced it was with Quad Electrostatics. The second time was with Danley SH50s. There are plenty of speakers which throw a nice soundstage, but those two speakers make the boundaries of the room disappear. The listening room in my home is tiny, barely 150', but close your eyes with an SH50 and you're transported to where the recording was made.
I need to stress that this is rather unique, as there ARE speakers which throw a huge stage, no matter what's on the recording. I've heard a lot of line arrays that do that, and you can create that effect electronically using crosstalk cancellation.
But the Quad and the SH50 were different, when the recording was small, the sound was small, and when the recording was great, it was like a window onto the recording venue.
The Beolab 90 does this.
Listening to the Summas back-to-back with the SH50s, I could tell that Geddes is correct when he says that HOMs are obnoxious. The SH50s image like crazy, but the treble isn't silky smooth like it is with the Summas. (And don't take my word for it, you can see it in the measurements of both.)
The Beolab didn't have that problem; there is no waveguide and no horn, and there are no HOMs.
Listening to the Quads, I knew I could never live with them; I'm a horn guy and the Quads lacked the dynamics I'm accustomed to.
The Beolab 90 is a BEAST; I'm surprised Bang & Olufsen wasn't kicked out of CES. I never even got close to the SPL limits of my Summas, but if the Beolab 90 had a limit, I couldn't tell what it was. B&O cranked it up for a couple of tracks, and you could FEEL the bass. Each cabinet basically has four high excursion subs in it, and thousands of watts.
The easiest way for me to describe the demo is this:
I have a pair of really nice headphones, Sennheiser HD380s. The Beolab 90 sounds like my headphones. Except the soundstage is out there in the room, instead of in my head. The sound is clean and dynamic. The soundstage is whatever you give it; give it a good recording and the soundstage is pinpoint and huge, give it a crummy recording and it's crummy.
Another thing that I really appreciated about the Bang & Olufsen demo was their transparency. For instance, the Dynaudio folks ran a demo using a track that appeared to have crosstalk cancellation on the recording. I've messed around a lot with crosstalk cancellation, so I know it when I hear it; it makes the stage insanely wide. The B&O folks weren't doing what most do, they weren't playing a series of "audiophile-approved" recordings carefully curated to wow the crowd. They were basically picking tracks at random from their music server. (80% of the tracks in the demo were tracks I owned, so I feel fairly confident that I wasn't snowed.)
So... Any questions?
If you couldn't tell yet, this is the best speaker I've ever heard, bar none. In fact, I feel a little silly lumping it in with other loudspeakers. It's like comparing a tube amp to a solid state amp. They both amplify the music, but they're completely different animals.
He's wrong. It's the most beutiful speaker ever according to this paid fanboy at Wired.
These Are the Most Beautiful $80K Speakers You've Ever Seen | WIRED
Actually, technically the title is "The most beautiful $80k speakers you've ever seen" and if they are the only $80k speakers you've ever seen then he may be right.
Hahahaha.
Erik
Also, design-oriented people doesn't really want a homemade bass trap, consisting of a plastic faux bamboo laudry bin, filled with a couple rolls of glass wool and wrapped in sackcloth...
Johan-Kr
That's an unnecessary expense. I just use old laundry I'm not sure I want to wear again. I find that if I don't wash it first it absorbs better.
I'm joking!
Erik
Do you find the Beolab90 beautiful? I don't get any feeling from it. The B&W snails were beautiful. John Inlow's horns are beautiful. FirstWatt heatsinks are beautiful
All of DIY knows how I feel about the looks of the BeoLab's.
I think the Beolab's are between the Dalek's of Dr. Who and vertical body bags. When the zombie apocalypse happens they'll be stacking bodies up that looks a lot like that. Best,
Erik
Does that mean we'd have to hit out own Patrick Bateman too?
Ronald,
Patrick does not write things like "sounds like tube amps inside", which in my world translates to "keep away from this, it sounds way too fat and colored", which was probably not intended by that guy writing, because he just doesn't know what he's writing. The problem with many HiFi journalists is they cannot stop writing nonsense because of being incompetent.
But i have no problems with anyone writing e.g. "i listened to speaker x at a that show an i liked it very much for this and that reasons."
Although even such a statement does not affect my understanding of a concept. There is no contradiction to what i wrote before, why the Beolab 90's concept as a whole is not convincing to me. I like more strict concepts that aim at and allow for optimization in loudspeaker-/room interaction and not things like "beam rotation" for mummy sitting outside the listening zone and rasping her nails after breakfast ... thereby wasting mid- and high range drivers as well as space thereby loosing options that would have been really interesting, when using the same effort in hardware differently.
It is a product for different people than i am and that's not a question of announced price solely.
Last edited:
Here's a brief review:
I've been going to audio shows for nearly twenty years now. In general, I've found that 80% of the speakers there are about as good as what you'd get at Best Buy, maybe a bit worse. I've noticed that you see a lot of names come and go.
The names that you see year-in-and-year-out tend to sell products that are consistently good. I've never heard a bad demo from Kef, Dynaudio, or Vandersteen. I'm not saying that they're GREAT, but they're consistently good, and once in a while, they're great.
One trend that I've noticed, particularly in the last five years, is that the overall quality of loudspeakers is getting very good. For instance, at the 2005 CES I'd say that most of the speakers I heard were average to mediocre. At the 2016 CES, most speakers sounded good.
I think there's a downside to this consistency though; a LOT of speakers sounded very very similar. For instance, both Kef and Wharfedale were demoing a modestly prices coincident speaker, and if I had a blindfold on I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
I think what's happening here is that the quality of measurement software, and general knowledge of psychoacoustics is getting so good, even average and inexpensive speakers are light years beyond what we had twenty years ago.
Pioneer's $100 speakers come to mind; back in the 90s something like this would come in a nicer cabinet and it would cost $1000.
In summary:
I listened to dozens of speakers at CES 2016, and many of them were quite good. We're in a bit of a 'golden age' when it comes to loudspeakers, there's a lot of good stuff that doesn't cost a lot.
But I didn't see a lot that pushed any boundaries.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The Nola Brio Trio really grabbed my attention. It has a lot in common with the LX Mini. I built myself an 'homage' to the LX Mini, and the Brio Trio reminded me a lot of my project, but the Nola sounds better. The speakers produce a soundstage which stretches well beyond their boundaries, and due to the tiny cabinets, they really disappear.
After a few hours of listening to various systems, listening fatigue was really setting in. For instance, I gave the Genesis line arrays a second listen, and though I loved them earlier in the day, I found that they weren't quite as good later in the day. I chalked it up to fatigue.
With less than ninety minutes left in the day, I made the trek over to Bang & Olufsen. My main goal wasn't to hear the Beolab 90s; I actually wanted to hear the Beolab 5s, as I've invested a lot of effort into acoustic lenses based on the Beolab.
By the way, I want to apologize for the length of this post. I wanted to put my experience with the Beolab into perspective. I don't want people thinking that it was the only speaker that I listened to at CES, or that I've only listened to a handful of world-class speakers. I've listened to hundreds, and I even bought a pair based on demos at audio shows. (I bought my Gedlee Summas based on a demo that Earl did at the 2005 RMAF.)
Let's cut to the chase here. The Beolab 90 is an industry-changing speaker. In my life I can count on one hand the speakers that are able to make the room 'disappear.' The first time I experienced it was with Quad Electrostatics. The second time was with Danley SH50s. There are plenty of speakers which throw a nice soundstage, but those two speakers make the boundaries of the room disappear. The listening room in my home is tiny, barely 150', but close your eyes with an SH50 and you're transported to where the recording was made.
I need to stress that this is rather unique, as there ARE speakers which throw a huge stage, no matter what's on the recording. I've heard a lot of line arrays that do that, and you can create that effect electronically using crosstalk cancellation.
But the Quad and the SH50 were different, when the recording was small, the sound was small, and when the recording was great, it was like a window onto the recording venue.
The Beolab 90 does this.
Listening to the Summas back-to-back with the SH50s, I could tell that Geddes is correct when he says that HOMs are obnoxious. The SH50s image like crazy, but the treble isn't silky smooth like it is with the Summas. (And don't take my word for it, you can see it in the measurements of both.)
The Beolab didn't have that problem; there is no waveguide and no horn, and there are no HOMs.
Listening to the Quads, I knew I could never live with them; I'm a horn guy and the Quads lacked the dynamics I'm accustomed to.
The Beolab 90 is a BEAST; I'm surprised Bang & Olufsen wasn't kicked out of CES. I never even got close to the SPL limits of my Summas, but if the Beolab 90 had a limit, I couldn't tell what it was. B&O cranked it up for a couple of tracks, and you could FEEL the bass. Each cabinet basically has four high excursion subs in it, and thousands of watts.
The easiest way for me to describe the demo is this:
I have a pair of really nice headphones, Sennheiser HD380s. The Beolab 90 sounds like my headphones. Except the soundstage is out there in the room, instead of in my head. The sound is clean and dynamic. The soundstage is whatever you give it; give it a good recording and the soundstage is pinpoint and huge, give it a crummy recording and it's crummy.
Another thing that I really appreciated about the Bang & Olufsen demo was their transparency. For instance, the Dynaudio folks ran a demo using a track that appeared to have crosstalk cancellation on the recording. I've messed around a lot with crosstalk cancellation, so I know it when I hear it; it makes the stage insanely wide. The B&O folks weren't doing what most do, they weren't playing a series of "audiophile-approved" recordings carefully curated to wow the crowd. They were basically picking tracks at random from their music server. (80% of the tracks in the demo were tracks I owned, so I feel fairly confident that I wasn't snowed.)
So... Any questions?
If you couldn't tell yet, this is the best speaker I've ever heard, bar none. In fact, I feel a little silly lumping it in with other loudspeakers. It's like comparing a tube amp to a solid state amp. They both amplify the music, but they're completely different animals.
Someone on Facebook asked why there are three tweeters in the Beolab 90.
I thought I'd share the response here, because it might help people make directional speakers without waveguides .
"Here's a simplified explanation of what Beolab is doing:
A loudspeaker will 'beam' when the frequencies radiated are smaller than the diameter of the driver. For instance, in the graph I've posted above, a one inch tweeter is 'beaming' above 13500hz.
If we had a series of ring shaped loudspeakers, we could make a speaker that had the directivity control of a waveguide, BUT WITHOUT A WAVEGUIDE.
Does that make sense?
A series of rings, and each ring covers a specific bandwidth.
The 'trick' here is that the apparent size of the loudspeaker changes with frequency. If the loudspeaker is playing 13,500hz, then only the tweeter in the center of the ring is playing. If the speaker is playing 6750hz, then the tweeter in the centre is playing, and so is the ring around it.
Basically, the larger the wavelength, the larger the speaker gets. (That's why the Beolab 90 is so big; to control directivity down to 250hz the loudspeaker has to be 54" tall, because that's how big 250hz is.)
If those last few paragraphs make sense, you may realize there's a few more speakers that work like this. The quad ESL and all the Danley speakers.
To answer your original question:
There are three tweeters because we need a 1" tweeter to control directivity at 13,500 Hz, but we need a 2" tweeter to control directivity at 6750hz. Furthermore, we need a 4" tweeter to control directivity at 3375hz. The tweeter array gets virtually larger as the frequencies get lower. In the array, there is only one tweeter playing at very high frequencies, because that's all you need at very high frequencies. As the frequencies get lower, you need an array that's physically larger to control the directivity."
Last edited:
I had these speakers in our showroom for more than 2 months and I listened to them 6 hours a day. We had them in 3 different rooms in the hotel we work and also another one at the final customer. These speakers are exceptional.
Please ask me questions about them if someone is curious about anything.
I have some measurements made at different points in the room but none outside and these can or cannot be trusted as anyone pleases .
The one attached is made at the listening point , in a relatively small room and it can be seen that the bass is a bit overwhelming. The fact is it is not!!!! The measurements are affected by the fact that the solid walls with little furniture are absorbing too little and the reverb time is too high for an accurate impulse response. The measurements are in fact valid only over 45 hz for real and under that it is only a suggestion of what they are capable. Our psychoacoustic sense us modifying this response as it is used to that room and it turns it into a very realistic reproduction.
The only thing I felt missing is the kick at 70-130 hz that on some songs should make me feel it in my teeth.
For what is worth, I could get about 126 dB Leq 125 ms at the listening spot and about 133 dB Lcpeak with a Bruel and Kjaer hand held meter.
Of cause this does not look like an "acceptable" room curve at all.
So there seem's to be some homework left to be done for the designers of this particular speaker too ...
(sorry again for 'mythbusting')
Marketing claims and "real room acoustics" (loudspeaker/room interaction) mostly compare like "a kick in the teeth", and exactly this is what can be learned/experienced here too ...
So there seem's to be some homework left to be done for the designers of this particular speaker too ...
(sorry again for 'mythbusting')
Marketing claims and "real room acoustics" (loudspeaker/room interaction) mostly compare like "a kick in the teeth", and exactly this is what can be learned/experienced here too ...
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.