I'd like to post this graph I measured this afternoon in my room using the demo version of APL_TDA, a high resolution measuring suite with a different touch.
Thread with more info here: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/284916-room-correction-speaker-correction-what-can-we-do-dsp-power-now-availabl.html
As line arrays have been mentioned a few times already in this thread (and my name came up in relation with that) I figured to show this plot here.
What you see here is the result I got (left plus right speaker) in my living room with my home brew correction using REW, DRC-FIR and JRiver, measured at the listening position:
One of the reasons I expected the B&O to do well (in a "live" listening demo) is because their focus is on a lot of the same areas where I put my focus on.
I can relate to what John said about listening to the B&O setup. And agree to what he said about early reflections. But you still need a bit more than that alone.
We might not need speakers as big as the B&O speakers. I'm sure there are other ways. My focus has been arrays, but I do see a good point in chasing the Synergy design to get to that same destination.
Mayhem13, if you will, work trough my tread to see my (early) horizontal results. They are there. And they are pretty good if I do say so myself.
Also look at the subjective listening impressions from ra7 on his thread about his corner arrays. And he isn't even done yet with the processing, just starting out in fact. subjective listening impressions start here. Does that sound familiar?
More than one way to get there, but measuring it all is mandatory i.m.h.o.
You mean post #839? from your thread
Could very well be, I don't remember the post number . It was those measurements that made me place 2 more damping panels at critical places in my room. But the low and high end of that plot shows pretty good tracking, and the average of those measurements came quite close to the target set at the listening position.
The thing I admire most about the B&O is the controlled directivity (adjustability is fun but I wouldn't see me use that) they were able to get with the multiple drivers. It took me 3 big damping panels to make up for the fact that I don't have that luxury (yet).
Edit: post #839 it is...
. It was those measurements that made me place 2 more damping panels at critical places in my room. But the low and high end of that plot shows pretty good tracking, and the average of those measurements came quite close to the target set at the listening position.The thing I admire most about the B&O is the controlled directivity (adjustability is fun but I wouldn't see me use that) they were able to get with the multiple drivers. It took me 3 big damping panels to make up for the fact that I don't have that luxury (yet
).Edit: post #839 it is...
Last edited:
Could very well be, I don't remember the post number
The thing I admire most about the B&O is the controlled directivity (adjustability is fun but I wouldn't see me use that) they were able to get with the multiple drivers. It took me 3 big damping panels to make up for the fact that I don't have that luxury (yet
Those are really nice charts, kind of inspire me to revisit my room acoustics.
But you know I can't help myself, I have to do the math. 3 damping panels from GIK Acoustics with fancy covers = $248.
$80,000 : $248 = $322: $1
Cost for aesthetically pleasing listening room: Priceless.
Best,
Erik
I have a total of 3 damping panels in use. 2 huge ones and one a bit smaller. Only one can be seen in the room. The other two are hidden behind drapes/curtains (whatever you call it) that were already there.
This is the only one in view:
I fill the space between my couch and damping panel with pillows when listening. I can live with that compromise. My speakers fit on an A4 paper each! Yes, they sure are tall...
I would like to place more panels, but I'm not allowed to, my girl said so and I will obey.
Last edited:
I fill the space between my couch and damping panel with pillows when listening. I can live with that compromise. My speakers fit on an A4 paper each! Yes, they sure are tall...
I would like to place more panels, but I'm not allowed to, my girl said so and I will obey.
Very nice looking!
Never underestimate the value of a speaker that takes up very little floor space! I was just commenting that the latest Magico S1s, while being small, take up a lot of room.
Best,
Erik
How did the Beolab compare in terms of tonality? I found the Danley to fall short in that area and noticed some ringing issues (issues from the slot loading?). The BMS compression drivers sounded quite a bit better but the JTR's using them didn't image as well.
In my opinion the placement and depth of the Synergy design is its' best attribute; however, the more narrow horizontal coverage makes the sound less believable compared to what you would hear in a good symphonic hall. Even on close-miked studio recordings that have ambiance effects added in I found the Danleys to be less enveloping. I think their best application is for pro sound.
I've heard Bill's Synergy horns and IMHO, the treble is "cleaner" on his.
While the Beolab 90 may be the best loudspeaker I've heard, Bill's speaker is certainly the best DIY speaker I've heard.
It's possible that the answer to this conundrum is simply FIR filters. Bill is using them and so is B&O. Danley is not, at least not with the ones they're selling. If you look at the measurement of a BMS 4552 as shown above, you can see that there's a fairly significant amount of peaks and dips in it's unequalized response. With FIR filters you can really flatten that out, and since we have bandwidth to burn when using compression drivers, the application of EQ will probably be quite easy.
DSP for beam control is done by Yamaha YSP-5600 too. More to come...
YSP-5600 - Sound Bars - Audio & Visual - Products - Yamaha United States
YSP-5600 - Sound Bars - Audio & Visual - Products - Yamaha United States
Did Mr. Olufson come to your house and kick your dog?
I know, right? I've never had such a visceral response to a piece of technology. I really should take it as inspiration. If B&O can take so much from the dumpster behind Ikea and make into a speaker cabinet, why shouldn't I?
Allow me to make up for it with a recent pic and article from the Stereophile website in case anyone missed it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
One thing though - they say each speaker has 8KW of amps. But you can only draw a max of 3KW from a mains socket
Actually for a period of about 1 second you can usually draw at least 3-5 times the continuous rated power. Otherwise you would struggle to start motors as small as ones used on drill presses on domestic power.
This probably has more to do with the smallest digital amplifiers they wanted to use, as opposed to any real intention of outputing 8 kW continously.
They probably used off-the-shelf digital amplifiers. So, around 150W for each driver in the top section, maybe 400-500W amplifiers for each woofer. In addition to bragging rights, some of the better digital amps just don't come in ideal versions of 20-50 watts. Given the very high efficiency of digital amplifiers and power supplies it's not a big loss in heat either.
Notice they don't say the power supply is rated that highly.
The power supply(supplies?) probably has/have no more than 1-2kW total capacity, something much more reasonable. The major size savings in the power supply may also be in that with beam steering, you'll be pushing some drivers, woofers especially, out of phase with each other, so you don't worry about all drivers of a type all drawing on the same rail at the same time. From an efficiency and PS sizing point of view, pretty nifty. Again, digital wins big because you don' have the same bias current losses that you would in an analog amplifier. You can 10 watt or 50 watt amplifiers idling and drawing about the same amount of power. If the amplifiers were analog though, merely having 18 amplifiers idling at near class-A would be a monstrous power draw.
Best,
Erik
Last edited:
OK, I'm still not a fan of the BeoLab, but looking at the coverage from CES 2016, it may very well be that the BeoLab is in fact one of the best values in the high end (meant dirisively) speakers being talked about for that show.
With 18 drivers and amplifiers, it's parts cost to MSRP is probably a lot better ratio than almost everything else there.
My bad.
Erik
With 18 drivers and amplifiers, it's parts cost to MSRP is probably a lot better ratio than almost everything else there.
My bad.
Erik
All those drivers and no control in the vertical dimension? What's the point? I don't think people are reading Toole and other research on reflections and their audibility. Simply put, horizontal directivity is much less important and the issues can be cured much more easily (wall absorbers/diffusers). Floor and ceiling reflections on the other hand are:
a. audible and they color the sound,
b. much harder to treat using absorbers/diffusers.
a. audible and they color the sound,
b. much harder to treat using absorbers/diffusers.
That review echoes my opinion:
he question I’ve been asked at every CES more often than any other is “Which sound system impressed you the most?” It’s a question that’s often difficult to answer. Typically, I’ve been impressed by several systems, often for different reasons, and it’s hard to say which was “the best.” That is, except at CES 2016. This time, I had no trouble answering this question: the BeoLab 90. The sound was utterly natural, effortless, with outstanding soundstage and imaging.
I'd probably listened to fifty different systems before I listened to the Beolab 90, and there were only three or four which really stood out. The main thing I noticed about CES 2016 is that all of the speakers were quite good, but nothing stood out. Except the Beolab 90 and a couple of others. (But the other two weren't in the same league.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.