This is certainly news to me, having heard 8" woofers play well up to 5-6Khz.
An 8" is really just a mid, anyway.
Not true!
Check this speaker and report back:
The QM60 | Guru Loudspeakers
Reviews (mostly on the smaller entry level design QM10):
Reviews And Quotes | Guru Loudspeakers
As the saying goes, don't judge a book by its cover.
If a low distortion, low inductance motor is used with a good cone design I know from experience that a 8" woofer can play up to and above 3kHz with top notch performance.
In fact one of the absolute best speakers I've heard are a MMTMM version with said 8" driver.
/Peter
Check out this speaker. Less power compression by horn loaded tweeter and 240W midrange.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/130857-high-end-3-way-dappolito-aluminiumcone.html
Very low third harmonic
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
On the strength of the original AB comparison quoted at the beginning of this thread, I went out and bought a pair of Behringer B3030As. They are the current version of their studio monitor series. They are the smaller of the two versions available (6¾” mid range with a 2” ribbon tweeter) but still with the fourth order Linkwitz-Riley crossovers and power amps included.
I compared them with my DIY-modified speakers. These are Omnisats where I removed the passive crossovers and replaced them with active crossovers and separate amps. And had their frequency response calibrated and equalised in an anechoic chamber. I had spent a good deal of time with all my mods getting my speakers to sound pretty perfect. I didn't really think the Behringer’s could compete but I thought it would be fun to see what they were like.
The Behringer's just blew my existing speakers away. They are much more accurate, scarily so. Placed at an appropriate height so that the tweeters are at ear level, you hear everything in the recording - placement of instruments and vocals, errors made by musicians, the sonic “width” of each track in the mix down.
I was quite sceptical about the whole thing with these speakers, but honestly they are a crazy bargain for the price particularly given you get active crossovers and power amps in the package.
I compared them with my DIY-modified speakers. These are Omnisats where I removed the passive crossovers and replaced them with active crossovers and separate amps. And had their frequency response calibrated and equalised in an anechoic chamber. I had spent a good deal of time with all my mods getting my speakers to sound pretty perfect. I didn't really think the Behringer’s could compete but I thought it would be fun to see what they were like.
The Behringer's just blew my existing speakers away. They are much more accurate, scarily so. Placed at an appropriate height so that the tweeters are at ear level, you hear everything in the recording - placement of instruments and vocals, errors made by musicians, the sonic “width” of each track in the mix down.
I was quite sceptical about the whole thing with these speakers, but honestly they are a crazy bargain for the price particularly given you get active crossovers and power amps in the package.
Pro sound drivers have won me over recently if only for their ability to pump sound into the room with easy confidence. They get a lot right and posses a no nonsense purpose... to reproduce music. Having some really nice drivers in my collection, lately it's the pro gear i enjoy most... at the moment anyway. A few more months need to pass before i pass full judgement. I wonder if this will be considered an affair or long term relationship? At the moment, i'm certainly having fun with my latest pro sound setup.
Hi,
I am not surprised.
But does that mean the Behringers are scarily good? Or that Omnisats are scarily bad?
Ciao T
I am not surprised.
But does that mean the Behringers are scarily good? Or that Omnisats are scarily bad?
Ciao T
What boconnor reports is my biggest concern!
There are people out there who run factories, those factories have laboratories full of scientists who know a thing or two and are paid to know better and better...
What!... Can I doooo?!? Wait! I am a hobby man :lol: - usually no competition to a real scientist.
My DIY dreams are disturbed by JBL Everest and K2 and by big Infinity from the 80's...
Maybe it is time for a topic about wavelength/cone effective diameter/directivity vs capacitor frequency dependant delay vs acoustic center depth...
So in a word, the answer for me would be: most possible known problems to be overcome through design sophistication.
Great thread!
Best regards!
There are people out there who run factories, those factories have laboratories full of scientists who know a thing or two and are paid to know better and better...
What!... Can I doooo?!? Wait! I am a hobby man :lol: - usually no competition to a real scientist.
My DIY dreams are disturbed by JBL Everest and K2 and by big Infinity from the 80's...
Maybe it is time for a topic about wavelength/cone effective diameter/directivity vs capacitor frequency dependant delay vs acoustic center depth...
So in a word, the answer for me would be: most possible known problems to be overcome through design sophistication.
Great thread!
Best regards!
I've done listening tests before, and no 8in, even 6in woofer can be used above 1khz, it just gets unpleasantly loud.
Heck, I couldn't even use 4in FR drivers above 2khz, they gave up first,in 3way speakers. None of the woofers(even 3in ones) belong in 1khz+ region.
For example, I don't even need to listen to these speakers
http://aetheraudio.com/specifications.html
I know they sound great with 700hz crossover.
It's just my opinion, don't get upset
Heck, I couldn't even use 4in FR drivers above 2khz, they gave up first,in 3way speakers. None of the woofers(even 3in ones) belong in 1khz+ region.
For example, I don't even need to listen to these speakers
http://aetheraudio.com/specifications.html
I know they sound great with 700hz crossover.
It's just my opinion, don't get upset
The same issue occurred to me. Some thoughts:
- The Omnisats measure fairly flat (after equalisation) from 100 Hz to 20 KHz (+/- 2db) on axis in an anechoic chamber. Their speaker topology implies a good power response, with a reasonable off axis frequency response compared with the on axis response over a wide angle. Given Toole's research on speakers that are judged to be accurate and preferred, such performance would be in line with speakers that produce a high quality sound field. And they sounded pretty good to me as well.
- I listened to some recordings with high-quality headphones and then listened to the Behringer's. They share a perception of accuracy based on the timbre that you hear when listening to close miked vocals and close miked instruments. It's the sense of things being unmasked and hearing the detail. This is of course just a straight subjective perception. But when you can listen to different recordings and close your eyes and “see" the width of the track by its placement in the front sound field (and hear it vary from recording to recording) that seems to me to be a good indicator of accuracy.
MisterTwister's opinion is not a fantasy, it could be explained by the well known directivity changes strictly related to the cone diameter.
math explanations in this site: http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/BaffledPiston/BaffledPiston.html
If you don't like ka, a fast rule of thumbs is "never use a driver over 345/diameter (in meters)"
but as you know, everything is a compromise, so...
math explanations in this site: http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/BaffledPiston/BaffledPiston.html
If you don't like ka, a fast rule of thumbs is "never use a driver over 345/diameter (in meters)"
but as you know, everything is a compromise, so...
Hi,
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have used 15" Drivers up to 1200 Hz and 10" drivers up to 15KHz.
Maybe it is a question of what drivers you used?
They likely do sound very good. But I doubt that the 700Hz crossover frequency as such is the direct cause. I would probably point to the waveguide as the main reason and note that the low crossover point is merely making best use of that waveguide loaded dome.
Ciao T
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have used 15" Drivers up to 1200 Hz and 10" drivers up to 15KHz.
Maybe it is a question of what drivers you used?
For example, I don't even need to listen to these speakers http://aetheraudio.com/specifications.html
I know they sound great with 700hz crossover. It's just my opinion, don't get upset
They likely do sound very good. But I doubt that the 700Hz crossover frequency as such is the direct cause. I would probably point to the waveguide as the main reason and note that the low crossover point is merely making best use of that waveguide loaded dome.
Ciao T
Hi,
This is only valid for pistonic operation. Most drivers are not. At best I'll grant that Thiel/Accuton come CLOSE to being pistonic through their intended range, with resulting implementation difficulties out of band.
Most drivers are already no longer behaving as pistons at such frequencies, so the rule is wrong (except for Thiel/Accuton). BTW, based on that I can use a 15" (frame) driver up to 1000Hz just fine.
The problem (which may indicate where MisterTwister's problems came from) may very well be the attempt to use drivers with very stiff cones that attempt to operate pistonic across the whole intended range.
Such drivers MUST have severe breakup resonances somewhere above the intended band. In this case only extremely steep filters stand any chance to avoid this ringing to cause major issues.
For example, with only a 4th order LR filter, I suspect the low crossover of the Speakers he referenced is the highest the driver is usable, as the filter is not steep enough to attenuate the breakup peak at a few KHz enough to be inaudible, or at least not to be objectionable as extreme shoutiness...
But that is just the result of making a driver with a very stiff cone.
Ciao T
This is only valid for pistonic operation. Most drivers are not. At best I'll grant that Thiel/Accuton come CLOSE to being pistonic through their intended range, with resulting implementation difficulties out of band.
Most drivers are already no longer behaving as pistons at such frequencies, so the rule is wrong (except for Thiel/Accuton). BTW, based on that I can use a 15" (frame) driver up to 1000Hz just fine.
The problem (which may indicate where MisterTwister's problems came from) may very well be the attempt to use drivers with very stiff cones that attempt to operate pistonic across the whole intended range.
Such drivers MUST have severe breakup resonances somewhere above the intended band. In this case only extremely steep filters stand any chance to avoid this ringing to cause major issues.
For example, with only a 4th order LR filter, I suspect the low crossover of the Speakers he referenced is the highest the driver is usable, as the filter is not steep enough to attenuate the breakup peak at a few KHz enough to be inaudible, or at least not to be objectionable as extreme shoutiness...
But that is just the result of making a driver with a very stiff cone.
Ciao T
Hi,
Meaningless. We do not listen in an anechoic chamber.
This may be so, HOWEVER they have basically zip DI (Directivity Index). ANd that is where the problem is.
Given Toole's research on speakers that are judged to be accurate and preferred, such performance would be in line with speakers that produce a high quality sound field. And they sounded pretty good to me as well.
I am not Toole would agree. I certainly do not, I would say that design is one that is the polar opposite from that which is needed to give any kind of accuracy.
I would say that the Behringers are decent "minimum quality" designs with design features that can at least offer a reasonable level of accuracy. Their extremely low budget for drivers, electronics and enclosures mean that drastic compromises are unavoidable.
So, if the Behringers are so much better than what you had before it would seem to me more like a scathing indictment of what you where using previously (and of the theories they are based on). But that's just me.
I actually have designed Speakers that are in many ways a high-end take on the kind of basic approach also shown by the Behringers, just without the budget driven compromises and as passive speaker (not that this stopped me from using 10th order filters anyway, or from running a 10" Woofer up to 1330Hz).
On the other hand, at home I am listening to a speaker Mr. Toole could have designed (on 2nd thought, maybe not), with a 10" Woofer, 5" Midrange, 1.2" circular ribbon and first order series filters, as I have found that the only crossovers I tolerate are 0th Order, 1st Order and very high (> 8th) Order and I did not want to optimise a 10th order filter for a one off lark.
There are many ways to make speakers work okay, Behringers is one, others exist. It seems however we have found one way that does work.
Ciao T
, the ka criterion is for perfect piston.....actually the DI of the omnistat isn't a problem, unless you move them close to a wall.
They just don't sound that good, but neither do they sound bad either.
Their biggest sin is compression. Turn up the volume to any reasonable level and they have that "hi fi" compressed sound +++, AND a load of harmonic distortion to "boot".
The second obvious problem is from the mid-bass reflector.
The basic idea behind the omnistat is good, but the implementation is poor - largely in an effort to keep the form factor small.
They just don't sound that good, but neither do they sound bad either.
Their biggest sin is compression. Turn up the volume to any reasonable level and they have that "hi fi" compressed sound +++, AND a load of harmonic distortion to "boot".
The second obvious problem is from the mid-bass reflector.
The basic idea behind the omnistat is good, but the implementation is poor - largely in an effort to keep the form factor small.
Its standard practice to measure freq. response in an anechoic chamber (as you must be aware). Its part of the suite of information we use to judge loudspeakers. Of course performance in the listening space is critical and forms part of an overall judgement of the speaker. BTW, you should try it (listen to a speaker in a anechoic chamber) – it would give you an interesting experience hearing a transducer without the coloration of room reflections.
I find that surprising given their topology. Do you have a link to a source with the DI measurements?
Well my reading of Toole is that on axis flat freq response is very important, as is a smooth DI. Both seem to be covered by the wave guide design of the Omnisats.
Have you measured them? Have you heard them properly setup? Active crossovers with amps is known good engineering. I suspect you are falling into the trap of judging a product by its name, or its price.
Indeed, but making a judgement without listening to speakers in situ is just arrogance born of ignorance.
Its sounds like you are confusing good engineering (active designs, wave guides on tweeters) with budget driven compromises (but that’s a mistake a lot of people make – its called ideology).
The higher the number the more directive.
Mirage Omnistats are a radial design, and are basically non-directive (horizontally) - thus having a nearly non-existent DI number (again, horizontally).
Hi,
I had access to a large anechoic chamber in the 80's when I worked with a company making studio equipment. I have listened to quite a number of speaker designs under anechoic conditions. Some later also sounded good in real acoustic spaces, other did not, though they all measured quite well. So the measurement is meaningless, because it does not allow us to judge the quality of a speaker in an actual acoustic space with any accuracy.
I tend to prefer these days speakers that (above the modal region) measure well in a wide range of real acoustic spaces. This implies usually a quite large DI.
I do not need to look at measurements to know they have no DI. These Speakers are near omni's. They therefore have a DI of 0dB (horizontal), meaning they radiate the same amount of energy into all directions, leading to a heavy preponderance of reflected and thus coloured sound over direct sound.
What is worse, their DI in the vertical direction is by far less constant of course and directing the sound upwards means we will have a load of further reflections from the ceiling with a fairly short duration.
My reading of Toole is that flat on axis response is important and the any changes in the off axis response must not contain large narrow band deviations. Toole sidesteps much of the issues what level of DI is approariate in normal living/listening rooms, in part because his tests where not carried out under such conditions.
As to the omnisat's, I do not see any waveguide, only diffusors, aimed at achieving the polar opposite of what waveguides do...
I have heard them. Also the Samson Rubicon 8. I nearly bought the Rubicon (but the shop had no stock, could not get any stock in reasonable time and where not offering a sensible discount for beaten up shop units).
The sound of both was okay (Rubicon a little up) and I figured I would be able to get over much of the problems with the sound by "tuning" the electronics, as the basics are "sound" (pun intentional).
That surely depends on the crossover and amps?
Not at all. IF I was still reviewing gear I would have probably given both the Behringer Monitors and the Samson Rubicons a very high recommendation for exceptional quality at their price-point (compared to a HiFi Amp and passive speakers for the same budget).
In the case of Omni's I do NOT need to listen.
What I know about acoustics suffices to tell how they will behave. Even with the best drivers, best electronics and so on their fundamental design is one that cannot produce a realistic reproduction in normal sized listening spaces that have not been acoustically treated to resemble anechoic chambers.
Now don't get me wrong, some people like the way Omni's sound and present the music (some people even like B*se 9o1's) and that is a personal choice, down to taste and preference.
Not at all. You may wish to take out the drivers and analyse them regarding distortion, thermal compression etc. and then compare them to the industry leaders in their group. You may wish to apply accelerometers to the enclosures and see how much "panel talk" there is. You may wish to measure the electronics and also perhaps use drive the actual drivers and cabs from a set of higher quality amplifiers.
All these things will illustrate where compromises in performance have been made to keep costs low and how the may impact the subjective perceived quality.
That said, if you gave me the money it costs to buy a pair of Behringer's to build a pair of active speakers, DIY myself, I doubt I could do better. But if you gave me a much larger budget...
Ciao T
I had access to a large anechoic chamber in the 80's when I worked with a company making studio equipment. I have listened to quite a number of speaker designs under anechoic conditions. Some later also sounded good in real acoustic spaces, other did not, though they all measured quite well. So the measurement is meaningless, because it does not allow us to judge the quality of a speaker in an actual acoustic space with any accuracy.
I tend to prefer these days speakers that (above the modal region) measure well in a wide range of real acoustic spaces. This implies usually a quite large DI.
I do not need to look at measurements to know they have no DI. These Speakers are near omni's. They therefore have a DI of 0dB (horizontal), meaning they radiate the same amount of energy into all directions, leading to a heavy preponderance of reflected and thus coloured sound over direct sound.
What is worse, their DI in the vertical direction is by far less constant of course and directing the sound upwards means we will have a load of further reflections from the ceiling with a fairly short duration.
My reading of Toole is that flat on axis response is important and the any changes in the off axis response must not contain large narrow band deviations. Toole sidesteps much of the issues what level of DI is approariate in normal living/listening rooms, in part because his tests where not carried out under such conditions.
As to the omnisat's, I do not see any waveguide, only diffusors, aimed at achieving the polar opposite of what waveguides do...
I have heard them. Also the Samson Rubicon 8. I nearly bought the Rubicon (but the shop had no stock, could not get any stock in reasonable time and where not offering a sensible discount for beaten up shop units).
The sound of both was okay (Rubicon a little up) and I figured I would be able to get over much of the problems with the sound by "tuning" the electronics, as the basics are "sound" (pun intentional).
That surely depends on the crossover and amps?
Not at all. IF I was still reviewing gear I would have probably given both the Behringer Monitors and the Samson Rubicons a very high recommendation for exceptional quality at their price-point (compared to a HiFi Amp and passive speakers for the same budget).
In the case of Omni's I do NOT need to listen.
What I know about acoustics suffices to tell how they will behave. Even with the best drivers, best electronics and so on their fundamental design is one that cannot produce a realistic reproduction in normal sized listening spaces that have not been acoustically treated to resemble anechoic chambers.
Now don't get me wrong, some people like the way Omni's sound and present the music (some people even like B*se 9o1's) and that is a personal choice, down to taste and preference.
Not at all. You may wish to take out the drivers and analyse them regarding distortion, thermal compression etc. and then compare them to the industry leaders in their group. You may wish to apply accelerometers to the enclosures and see how much "panel talk" there is. You may wish to measure the electronics and also perhaps use drive the actual drivers and cabs from a set of higher quality amplifiers.
All these things will illustrate where compromises in performance have been made to keep costs low and how the may impact the subjective perceived quality.
That said, if you gave me the money it costs to buy a pair of Behringer's to build a pair of active speakers, DIY myself, I doubt I could do better. But if you gave me a much larger budget...
Ciao T
Hi,
Define "close".
I would say "close" is any distance that causes reflections that fall within the haas window (around 10m distance or less for the reflection to cover from speaker to wall to listner), as these will not be heard as "reverb", but integrated with the main axis sound and will show up as colorations to the direct sound, more so while listening in the far- and mid-field, less so in the near-field.
I am really not sure the basic is good or bad. It depends on what you wish to achieve. They are very good at maximising the negative impact of room reflections over the direct sound. If that is what you wish to achieve they are nearly as good as B*se 9o1's.
Ciao T
Define "close".
I would say "close" is any distance that causes reflections that fall within the haas window (around 10m distance or less for the reflection to cover from speaker to wall to listner), as these will not be heard as "reverb", but integrated with the main axis sound and will show up as colorations to the direct sound, more so while listening in the far- and mid-field, less so in the near-field.
I am really not sure the basic is good or bad. It depends on what you wish to achieve. They are very good at maximising the negative impact of room reflections over the direct sound. If that is what you wish to achieve they are nearly as good as B*se 9o1's.
Ciao T
If that is a theory concerning omni-directional speakers not being able to create a realistic sound space with good phantom sources in normal listening rooms (your "realistic reproduction") then there are some Linkwitz Pluto owners you should talk with who may have a different perspective -if you're open to some empirical exploration.