I couldn't match them at that price point. Now if twice that or more possibly, as long as your not looking for a profit. These little gems are on very solid ground.
Uli should be proud
I could just about buy the drive units in my (passive) Behringers for the cost of the finished product from Behringer.
I think you'd have to spend twice what they cost just to build the things. Triple or more to beat them by any margin, and that's before you've got the measurement rig out and played with crossovers.
IMHO, they're a very good reference to judge anything else by: cheap, readily available, and sound amazing for what they are.
Chris
PS - Earl, I have a rack of Behringer gear, plus one of their mixers. If you get chance, tell him its much appreciated by just-starting-out sound engineers like me.
I stripped my B2031P 's out and put in bespoke DIY drivers. Never looked back. The Behringer are good value but you need to hear them first.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/225399-desktop-dipole-monitors-6.html#post3292118
now they are not as constant at the top end but they don't need to be. They are for the nearfield.
I thought vertical polars are more important for this application also better controled dispersion all the way to the low end.
This is more important in the near field because high frequencies will be way attenuated by the time they bounce off the side walls. Also the rear is diffused and absorbed as per linkwitz lx mini.
now they are not as constant at the top end but they don't need to be. They are for the nearfield.
I thought vertical polars are more important for this application also better controled dispersion all the way to the low end.
This is more important in the near field because high frequencies will be way attenuated by the time they bounce off the side walls. Also the rear is diffused and absorbed as per linkwitz lx mini.
Oh heck no.
I hate the crowds.
But I highly suggest falcons fury!
350 ft drop.
Of course i could diy a higher drop for less money to!
Lol
it's just the price of an airline ticket
Last edited:
You could just buy qnty 8 B2031A's and arrange them in four sided diamond and adjust the individual gains and get your self a really loud and flat/accurate IMP for $1600. Sort of the best of both worlds. Not much DIY to it.
Yes, i was curious as to why he didn't go with CD speakers.
It seams you could get sharper, less diffused reflections.
Xrk, I think it's the right time to build some foam-core IMP speakers. How about starting with eight 6.5" midbasses with eight 3" fullrangers per speaker; FAST configuration (1st order series crossovers at about 400 hz). Sealed boxes. Active amplification (four independently adjustable amps-one for each side of the speaker). In case they don't go deep enough, add four (or at least two) sealed subs with linkwitz transform circuit. Should sound good
Close. If I did this it would be in XPS pink foam and I would use qnty 4 X TC9FD's and Qnty 4 x Dayton 6.5in polycone woofers (same ones used in B652's). Run the woofers and Vifa's with a 350Hz 12dB PLLXO. I would use a class D TPA3116 x 8 channels per side and have volume pots on each channel in a 1x8 fan out preamp per side.
$20 for 4 woofers per side $48 for Vifa's, $10 for PLLXO parts, $60 for 8 ch amp. $60 for 1x8 preamp. $200 per side not including foam box.
$400 total... The $1600 qnty 8 x Behringer doesn't look so bad now.
Well here is my review of Gary's new IMP's
We started out with jazz, lots of horns, piano, bass and drums.
The system is very dynamic. Huge peaks in amplitude.
I'm not going to comment on the drivers or the arrangement of them on the speakers (MTM)
What sticks in my mind as I think back to the sound is how large a soundstage it was.
It resembled sitting in a concert hall, just huge waves of sound coming at you. Like a wall of sound.
It had incredible depth and very good imaging.... although I must admit, not appropriately sized
(this held true for quartet music I played as well as smaller ensemble studio recordings)
An example of this was Radioheads "give up the ghost" which is a camfire sounding guitar song.
Orchestral recordings sounded as natural as can be. I played my all time favorite song "ara batur" by Sigur Ros. This is a spot mic recording at abby road studio. It was really convincing.
Then we moved on to a test cd with localization sounds and again, good localization although a bit fuzzy.
One thing to note, if you make the left and right more diffused it seems to match the timber of the Phantom image between the speakers. I find this happens with my line arays.
So, more comb filtering and phase issues for each speaker will match the center phase problems due to crosstalk.
One track on this cd was a helicopter. That was intense, if you closed your eyes, there was a helicopter right there.
Then on to dark side of the moon, more of the same. Very good localization and deep sound stage but rather large. The room seemed swamped with sound but not really messy, just lager images.
I suppose this is what everybody expected and frankly so did I.
These speakers provided a very realistic and enjoyable experience.
Much more so with certain types of music. (thankfully the kind that audiophiles enjoy)
Orchestral, jazz and live recordings.
He also employs the rear speakers with dolby pro logic now and again, for a more immersive soundfield.
Now on to the behringers, he himself was very impressed with them. He said he didn't remember them sounding this good. I then reminded him that these were the active versions not the passive ones.
I played several tracks through them and we were equally impressed with one exception.....
Like any CD box type speakers there is a disconnect in the soundfield.
Foward firing for everything above the baffle step and omni below.
As he listened, he commented on how the drums seamed to have a deep sound coming from behind the speakers and all the higher frequencies coming from the speakers.
This is a huge problem and it is the very problem that he and SL and many others have realized. The room should be illuminated evenly across the entire frequency spectrum or there will be a discontinuity in the soundfield. The acoustic scene or auditory image collapses.
This is why many go with omni-directionals or dipoles or bipoles....
Of course there is a problem with this as well, as I'm sure many here will agree with.... Loss of detail due to phase issues and smear caused by reflections.
The bottom line is either system is great depending on what you like.
Do you want detail? Then listen to CD speakers in the nearfield away from boundries.
Or do you want a live big sound for your live recordings?
Then try the IMP's.
Personally, I could not imagine how someone could mistake one for the other, even in a double blind test. They could not sound more different.
On a last note, this Gary fellow is serious about sound. He has what he calls (the electric room) it's an adjacent room that houses two very powerful carver pro amps, a nice reciever and a behringer ultrcurve (for room correction and eq)
Not to mention drawers full of wires and connectors. Along with a few hundred LP's and cd's.
I'm very happy to have spent time with him and his system. He was very kind and cordial.
I learned a lot by being there and listening to his theory and compairing the two different approaches to sound reproduction.
Jason Melo
We started out with jazz, lots of horns, piano, bass and drums.
The system is very dynamic. Huge peaks in amplitude.
I'm not going to comment on the drivers or the arrangement of them on the speakers (MTM)
What sticks in my mind as I think back to the sound is how large a soundstage it was.
It resembled sitting in a concert hall, just huge waves of sound coming at you. Like a wall of sound.
It had incredible depth and very good imaging.... although I must admit, not appropriately sized
(this held true for quartet music I played as well as smaller ensemble studio recordings)
An example of this was Radioheads "give up the ghost" which is a camfire sounding guitar song.
Orchestral recordings sounded as natural as can be. I played my all time favorite song "ara batur" by Sigur Ros. This is a spot mic recording at abby road studio. It was really convincing.
Then we moved on to a test cd with localization sounds and again, good localization although a bit fuzzy.
One thing to note, if you make the left and right more diffused it seems to match the timber of the Phantom image between the speakers. I find this happens with my line arays.
So, more comb filtering and phase issues for each speaker will match the center phase problems due to crosstalk.
One track on this cd was a helicopter. That was intense, if you closed your eyes, there was a helicopter right there.
Then on to dark side of the moon, more of the same. Very good localization and deep sound stage but rather large. The room seemed swamped with sound but not really messy, just lager images.
I suppose this is what everybody expected and frankly so did I.
These speakers provided a very realistic and enjoyable experience.
Much more so with certain types of music. (thankfully the kind that audiophiles enjoy)
Orchestral, jazz and live recordings.
He also employs the rear speakers with dolby pro logic now and again, for a more immersive soundfield.
Now on to the behringers, he himself was very impressed with them. He said he didn't remember them sounding this good. I then reminded him that these were the active versions not the passive ones.
I played several tracks through them and we were equally impressed with one exception.....
Like any CD box type speakers there is a disconnect in the soundfield.
Foward firing for everything above the baffle step and omni below.
As he listened, he commented on how the drums seamed to have a deep sound coming from behind the speakers and all the higher frequencies coming from the speakers.
This is a huge problem and it is the very problem that he and SL and many others have realized. The room should be illuminated evenly across the entire frequency spectrum or there will be a discontinuity in the soundfield. The acoustic scene or auditory image collapses.
This is why many go with omni-directionals or dipoles or bipoles....
Of course there is a problem with this as well, as I'm sure many here will agree with.... Loss of detail due to phase issues and smear caused by reflections.
The bottom line is either system is great depending on what you like.
Do you want detail? Then listen to CD speakers in the nearfield away from boundries.
Or do you want a live big sound for your live recordings?
Then try the IMP's.
Personally, I could not imagine how someone could mistake one for the other, even in a double blind test. They could not sound more different.
On a last note, this Gary fellow is serious about sound. He has what he calls (the electric room) it's an adjacent room that houses two very powerful carver pro amps, a nice reciever and a behringer ultrcurve (for room correction and eq)
Not to mention drawers full of wires and connectors. Along with a few hundred LP's and cd's.
I'm very happy to have spent time with him and his system. He was very kind and cordial.
I learned a lot by being there and listening to his theory and compairing the two different approaches to sound reproduction.
Jason Melo
Last edited:
The usual "yea but". You said that they "blew away" the Behringers! Was that maybe a bit of an exaggeration? I don't see them as good, but then the data is kind of low resolution.