Wow, that's interesting. I really thought the OSMTMs were going lower than that. Maybe I need to adjust my understanding of what low frequencies sound like.
"Maybe the midrange presence and general quality is what the OP is hearing in the speakers." You could be right. "Presence" seems to be the right word for what I'm hearing in the OSMTMs but not hearing in the 2031s -- with respect to electric guitars specifically, I mean.
Thanks for explaining.
"Maybe the midrange presence and general quality is what the OP is hearing in the speakers." You could be right. "Presence" seems to be the right word for what I'm hearing in the OSMTMs but not hearing in the 2031s -- with respect to electric guitars specifically, I mean.
Thanks for explaining.
If I were taking a stab in the dark now knowing what the overnight sensation is, I bet it's a wider dispersion speaker that the B2031P. The 2031P should outdo the bass on that thing, but MR presence should be an ONS thing. That should actually equal a lot of qualitative difference. My blog has a couple posts in the differences.
Dan
Dan
By wider dispersion, do you mean the soundwaves go off in a wider pattern from the drivers?
I'm not sure that I know what that sounds like, but I will say that when I did an A/B comparison, the 2031s sounded "wider" and the OSMTMs "narrower". Maybe another way of putting it is, the 2031s sounded more open and the OSs more narrowly focused. It was obvious upon switching between them.
However, I suspect I am using overly subjective language which may not be very useful.
What it boils down to is that I have about day and a half to decide whether I'm keeping the 2031s or returning them. Returning them will cost me $60 so I'm loath to do it, but on the other hand at least I will get $190 back which I could apply (minus $60) to another speaker or DIY parts. So I wondered if there was anything I could do to get them to sound the way I want on rock-and-roll songs. It's a tough decision because I would be giving up that incredible detail that I love. Oh well, one way or another I will make my mind up by Saturday.
I appreciate all the input!
I'm not sure that I know what that sounds like, but I will say that when I did an A/B comparison, the 2031s sounded "wider" and the OSMTMs "narrower". Maybe another way of putting it is, the 2031s sounded more open and the OSs more narrowly focused. It was obvious upon switching between them.
However, I suspect I am using overly subjective language which may not be very useful.
What it boils down to is that I have about day and a half to decide whether I'm keeping the 2031s or returning them. Returning them will cost me $60 so I'm loath to do it, but on the other hand at least I will get $190 back which I could apply (minus $60) to another speaker or DIY parts. So I wondered if there was anything I could do to get them to sound the way I want on rock-and-roll songs. It's a tough decision because I would be giving up that incredible detail that I love. Oh well, one way or another I will make my mind up by Saturday.
I appreciate all the input!
Like you said, I also suspect that the MTM's have a peak somewhere that gives them that punchy character. Only real way to find out for sure is to measure in room.
As for returning these, i would suggest you try the active version of the same speaker, the 2031A as there's a good chance they'll sound better. That's due both to the speaker being driven directly by the dual internal amps and to the adjustment (albeit limited) allowed in the bass range via switches in the back of the speaker.
As for returning these, i would suggest you try the active version of the same speaker, the 2031A as there's a good chance they'll sound better. That's due both to the speaker being driven directly by the dual internal amps and to the adjustment (albeit limited) allowed in the bass range via switches in the back of the speaker.
Hard to figure out anything of a fix from a purely subjective description, but we gave it our best. Normally a smaller woofer will have a wider pattern and so will a tweeter w/o a waveguide. Typically you'll see a disconnect in the polar graph. Here is a rather extreme example:
The ONS shouldn't be anywhere near that bad.
This chart might help you figure this out:
Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network
I'd actually say that to really know, you'd need some of my pseudo anechoic polars and several position in room measurements.
Strangely, I love the way these do rock. I actually think along with movies, it's their strong suit.
Dan
The ONS shouldn't be anywhere near that bad.
This chart might help you figure this out:
Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network
I'd actually say that to really know, you'd need some of my pseudo anechoic polars and several position in room measurements.
Strangely, I love the way these do rock. I actually think along with movies, it's their strong suit.
Dan
IME a speaker lacking deep bass (ie rolling off below about 80Hz or so as this emphasizes the kick drum over deep bass lines) is often perceived as being 'punchy'. No need for peaks elsewhere. Could this be the case here?
I still think that the only way to get deep AND punchy bass is going active.
Well, on my day off I moved both sets of speakers out of my bedroom and into the living room, in case the room acoustics were the problem. I didn't think they were, since I was comparing two speakers. It seemed like regardless of the room, the speakers would be the same relative to each other.
The first thing I did was listen to them both close up. First I cut out all the bass I could (via a low filter and turning the bass knob all the way down) and listened to the higher frequencies only. Of course neither speaker sounded natural that way, but the 2031s managed to sound more natural. On vocals, for example, the OSs sounded like the singer was singing into a can or something, by comparison.
This baffles me since I don't know what to attribute it to. But I think it does give me a clue as to what I perceived as more punchiness in the OSs: The OSs' sound is more focused, sort of funneled and concentrated, therefore it's more in your face -- even though objectively, when compared with the 2031s, it's less realistic. So I think that fooled me into thinking they were punchier, when they were actually just more concentrated.
(Don't get me wrong, I think the OSMTMs are great speakers. I loved them from the day I finished building them, and I still love their sound. And considering I built them for $150 including all cabinet materials, they're a great deal. I only notice the things I described when comparing them directly with the 2031s right next to each other.)
But anyway, in the living room the 2031s rock! There is no longer an obvious difference in the punch, but they still sound significantly more lifelike than the OSs, and when playing Fall Out Boy they make the floor vibrate more. 😀 Right now I'm in the dining room typing this, with a jazz album playing in the living room, and it sounds like there's a live band in there.
So yeah, I think I'm keeping them.
I appreciate your suggestion. Something I don't understand though -- and I'm not arguing, just asking because I know next to nothing about these things -- I don't get why having an amp built into the speaker would make them qualitatively different from being driven by a separate amp. Either way they're being amped, right?
Ha! I love FOB. People would be horrified if they knew the kind of music I listen to on my fancy home setup. I've been to the Warped Tour three times now. It's lulz that Ashlee Simpson pulled a Yoko Ono and broke up the band, then dumped Wentz anyways. What a jerk 😉
Here's the problem that you are running in to. I'll do my best to explain it, but if this doesn't make sense, I'll do my best to clarify.
Due to the driver spacing of your MTMs, they create a "beam" down to around 800hz. This means that they're rather sensitive to how high or low you sit. But the upside is that they do not energize the room as much in the high frequencies. Picture a flashlight of high frequency energy.
This "beam" only works to about 800hz, and below that frequency, the entire room is energized.
What you end up with is a remarkably different Power Response. And *this* is what makes the Behringers sound brighter than your MTM.
David Smith, the chief engineer of Snell Audio, posts on this forum. His id is "dsmith" or something. Check out some of his threads, it may help to explain this. (Google "snell expanding array")
I hope that helps to explain why your MTMs sound so much different than your Behringers.
The thing that's a bummer about this is that you can't fix it with an EQ, because EQs can't change the polar response of a speaker.
You can band-aid it by playing around with EQ, and also considering the treatment of your room. For instance, go to Ikea and buy a big plush rug and put it right in front of the speaker, to absorb the floor bounce. That will make the Behringer sound "punchier" by absorbing some of the highs.
HTH
Last edited:
The ONS will have wide horizontal dispersion, but narrow vertical dispersion. It's a D'Appolito, and dispersion gets narrow particularly with wide spacing between the woofers, like they're using.
Also, due to the spacing of this array, listening this close is a terrible idea. You should sit at a distance of about five to ten times the woofer spacing. (IE, if your array is using large woofers, you need to sit further away.)
Well, all things being equal -- and they hardly ever are, having to split the signal for the cross-over at the low level i.e. from preamp to amp is better than splitting at the high level i.e. from amp to speaker. The bigger crossover components required for passive speakers cost more, so to compensate lower quality ones are used -- at least in mass marketed and produced gear. Then you have insertion losses, hysteresis distortion due to steel core inductors etc.
Also if the designers do their jobs properly, they will match the amps to the specific drivers and will correct / equalize for driver impedance and frequency response anomalies inside the "amp". This is a lot more cost effective done with small components incorporated on the amp's PCB during line assembly rather than with big expensive passive components wired and soldered right before the driver.
Having said all that, I think that both approaches can yield the same end result if both are designed and implemented to their fullest potential. However in this case when talking about a low priced mass produced component, I think that the active approach would, for the reasons mentioned, hold the better promise. Also having some limited EQ control of the bass will not hurt either.
Charles Darwin, above has also put forth an interesting theory (pun intended), regarding small speakers' mid bass emphasis due to lack of real bass, but that's also in line with what I said before about a frequency response issue in the lower range. No matter who's right only in-room measurements will reveal the truth. If you can get the 2031A's without incurring any costs upon returning them, then I would do just that. You know you like the basic character of the Behringer and this speaker is probably the best deal anywhere on a true constant directivity design (as verified by third party measurements).
There's a great sale going on for these speakers right now:
Behringer B2031P Truth Reference Studio Monitor
Dan
Behringer B2031P Truth Reference Studio Monitor
Dan
I bought my pair of Behringer 2031P last weekend.
It has been a special offer and cost 95€ (about 120$).
I connected the 2031P to my prototype of Carlos Mergulhao's DX Blame:
I am very impressed by the "true" sound of the 2031P.
And - the bass is very (!) present, very deep and "it kicks" (for example, when I listen to "Keb Mo - Slow Down").
Best regards - Rudi_Ratlos
It has been a special offer and cost 95€ (about 120$).
I connected the 2031P to my prototype of Carlos Mergulhao's DX Blame:
I am very impressed by the "true" sound of the 2031P.
And - the bass is very (!) present, very deep and "it kicks" (for example, when I listen to "Keb Mo - Slow Down").
Best regards - Rudi_Ratlos
While I agree with the above reasons, the writer tends to emphasise the cost savings (which would rarely exceed the cost of the extra amplifiers) and understate the technical advantages of active speakers. I would certainly not say that both approaches can yield the same end result. Active speakers are vastly superior in a technical sense; a good discussion can be found here. Just how much of that superiority is audible would be a different thread about the limitations of human hearing.... and so would a discussion of why passive speakers are so popular among audiophiles (largely because the myth that equivalent amps all sound different means audiophiles want to swap amps obsessively)....
Is there a schematic of the crossover of the behringer 2031?
Maybe could be interesting to tweak it a bit or if anybody knows the crossover point to use a minidsp active crossover....
Does anybody use it for music listening and Ht front speaker?
I'm very undecided between buy the 3 behringers or build a 3 Mark er18dxt (but would cost about 2 times more)
Maybe could be interesting to tweak it a bit or if anybody knows the crossover point to use a minidsp active crossover....
Does anybody use it for music listening and Ht front speaker?
I'm very undecided between buy the 3 behringers or build a 3 Mark er18dxt (but would cost about 2 times more)