They claim everthing is made in-house (including the drivers) at their mega-factory in China. Don't know if this is true for all the components in the speaker.
Linkwitz' more recent observation -- or argument, if you prefer -- is that our brains do a better job of filtering out the sound of the room with omnis, dipoles and cardioids than other types because the off axis sound is, as you put it, "relatively well balanced in frequency response". If the room isn't "illuminated" by a speaker whose frequency response (but not level) is independent of direction, then we hear the room more because the ambient sound does not sound like it was processed by the environment alone. This assumes that we learn the sound of a space upon entry, and use its transfer function to "normalize" the ambient sounds we hear in that space to compare with the direct sounds. Any ambient sounds that don't appear to be like the direct sounds modified by the room's transfer function grab the attention of our primitive minds and interrupt our stream processing of the direct sound.
It would be good to know how this effect changes with ambient sound *level* so that some reverberant field thresholds could be correlated with radiation patterns of different speaker types. As it appears, his omni and dipole speakers let the recording's ambient sound (if any 😉) dominate the room's if the room is a fairly benign living space with reasonable RT60 instead of, say, a concrete bunker.
- Eric
You're missing an important aspect of dipole/omni radiators. The level of reflected high frequency energy is pretty low regardless of the radiation type employed because high frequency sound waves scatter and lose a great deal of their energy when reflected as opposed to lower frequencies which possess a great deal more energy and "scatter" less after reflection as a result of the much longer wavelength. The sounds that wrap around objects and maintain intensity after reflection are the middle and lower range frequencies - which happen to be the ones where the ear is most sensitive. A piano, harp, violin, guitar, drum or percussion kit, flute...etc... these all emit sound at lower frequencies which is essentially omnidirectional. The key advantage of the dipole radiator is that they are projecting nearly twice the energy into the space at these frequencies than the monopole (constant directivity) design. I use the term "dipole" because the omni designs that feature inverted or upward facing cones aren't really radiating at 360 degrees - they are essentially an alternative configuration monopole. The net affect is that the sound field appears to be livelier with a dipole pattern than CD pattern. And this liveliness is closer to what one would actually experience with a live performance that is close mic'd. Each design philosophy has it's strengths and drawbacks like anything else. But trying to say one is "better" or "more accurate" makes no sense unless one takes into account the nature of the recording and what you are trying to accomplish with that recording. If you're trying to preserve the spatial cues of a particular live sound event - the constant directivity design is likely to be superior as it provides better room isolation over most of the critical frequency range. One thing we've ignored here is the low frequency reflections wherein the dipole radiator maintains better directivity than the constant directivity monopole. Usually around 800 hz, the tables get turned and the monopole's directivity begins to surpass the dipole. Again, one is coming and the other is going in terms of design objectives and ideal applications.
I don't have anything technical to add, just my personal observation that any test or review involving Arny Krueger and/or Tom Nousaine is not to be trusted. Those boys have an agenda.
Hi,
The only issue is that un-doctored close-miked recordings sound mostly terrible (do some one day), so depending on how conscientious the recording engineer is either adding a few ambiance microphones to capture the room sound after all, so the recording would sound "wet" enough for listeners to like it. Or in my studio days we would instead record the instruments extremely dry and then crank up the Eventide SP2016 to add the needed reverb (nowadays it's done in the DAW using a suitable plugin).
So the argument is valid only for a few unusual recordings, all others have some form of spatial cues, natural or synthetic in them.
I find the dipole to be by far more controlled directivity than omni. Even an "ideal" dipole has a DI of 4.8dB (compared to 0dB for an Omni) and that is constant up to the frequency where the drivers beging to narrow their own dispersion, where the DI increases. One does have to take care to either absorb/diffuse the rear radiation or to delay it sufficiently to avoid too much reverb, but next to Omni's and a lot of commercial speakers dipoles have excellent controlled directivity.
Then again, it is SO EASY to make a system that is cardioid from the bass upwards, so it should be non too difficult to make a system with a DI (horizontal and Vertical) of around 6dB constant up to around 5 - 12KHz (depending on the precise tweeter used) with increasing DI above that.
As to the importance of the correct tonal balance of reflections, I have found the sound of most (even "narrow dispersion") speakers used in normal sized rooms (so not the huge dining suites in hotels for shows, but 35 - 60 square meters) to be almost solely determined by the off axis sound, so speakers with an even off axis response sound better.
BUT a narrow dispersion speaker with a very uneven off axis response is much less affected than a wide dispersion type. See also my comments above on the effect of early reflections on the percieved balance, all else equal, the less reflected sound, the more we hear the recording, which may or may not be what the listener wants.
Ciao T
The only issue is that un-doctored close-miked recordings sound mostly terrible (do some one day), so depending on how conscientious the recording engineer is either adding a few ambiance microphones to capture the room sound after all, so the recording would sound "wet" enough for listeners to like it. Or in my studio days we would instead record the instruments extremely dry and then crank up the Eventide SP2016 to add the needed reverb (nowadays it's done in the DAW using a suitable plugin).
So the argument is valid only for a few unusual recordings, all others have some form of spatial cues, natural or synthetic in them.
I find the dipole to be by far more controlled directivity than omni. Even an "ideal" dipole has a DI of 4.8dB (compared to 0dB for an Omni) and that is constant up to the frequency where the drivers beging to narrow their own dispersion, where the DI increases. One does have to take care to either absorb/diffuse the rear radiation or to delay it sufficiently to avoid too much reverb, but next to Omni's and a lot of commercial speakers dipoles have excellent controlled directivity.
Then again, it is SO EASY to make a system that is cardioid from the bass upwards, so it should be non too difficult to make a system with a DI (horizontal and Vertical) of around 6dB constant up to around 5 - 12KHz (depending on the precise tweeter used) with increasing DI above that.
As to the importance of the correct tonal balance of reflections, I have found the sound of most (even "narrow dispersion") speakers used in normal sized rooms (so not the huge dining suites in hotels for shows, but 35 - 60 square meters) to be almost solely determined by the off axis sound, so speakers with an even off axis response sound better.
BUT a narrow dispersion speaker with a very uneven off axis response is much less affected than a wide dispersion type. See also my comments above on the effect of early reflections on the percieved balance, all else equal, the less reflected sound, the more we hear the recording, which may or may not be what the listener wants.
Ciao T
I can't speak for the taste of others. All I know is that the most natural or "real sounding" experiences I've had with reproduced sound have been with dipole radiators playing sound from instruments, voice, and percussion in which the microphones were placed close to the sound sources and there was little to no "ambiance" present in the recording. The recordings possessed good localization of sources but the recording environment (studio) was essentially dead. I generally don't listen to large orchestral pieces so trying to reproduce the recorded acoustics of a great concert hall is not something I've ever cared to do. If that were a high priority for someone who owned dipole speakers, they could add sound absorbing panels to nearby walls as a means of reducing early reflections.
They likely have a hand in spec/design of the drivers, but very likely manufacture is farmed out to someone with a low cost per init infrastructure.
dave
Hi,
Yup, I think I mentioned that as well. Whenever the ABX Mafia flies their Banner it is time to move on...
Ciao T
Yup, I think I mentioned that as well. Whenever the ABX Mafia flies their Banner it is time to move on...
Ciao T
Hi,
You realise that you are referring to your Behringer B2031P PASSIVE Monitor with a waveguide loaded metal dome (IIRC), 8" Woofer, passive crossover and YOUR amplifiers + Speaker cables?
Meanwhile we are talking about the ACTIVE version (B3030A) equipped with a ribbon tweeter, a 6.5" Woofer and chipamp based amplification with active crossover.
You seem to write as if there was only one Behringer monitor.
The original test also employed the ACTIVE Behringer monitors.
Ciao T
You realise that you are referring to your Behringer B2031P PASSIVE Monitor with a waveguide loaded metal dome (IIRC), 8" Woofer, passive crossover and YOUR amplifiers + Speaker cables?
Meanwhile we are talking about the ACTIVE version (B3030A) equipped with a ribbon tweeter, a 6.5" Woofer and chipamp based amplification with active crossover.
You seem to write as if there was only one Behringer monitor.
The original test also employed the ACTIVE Behringer monitors.
Ciao T
Hi,
Not at all. However it would be good if you made clear that your comments applied to a very different model from Behringer's range.
Otherwise someone reading may infer that boconnor and you are talking about the same Loudspeaker, when in fact you are talking about very different ones...
Ciao T
Not at all. However it would be good if you made clear that your comments applied to a very different model from Behringer's range.
Otherwise someone reading may infer that boconnor and you are talking about the same Loudspeaker, when in fact you are talking about very different ones...
Ciao T
They claim to roll their own--even show pictures of happy Chinese looking at the drivers.
Awww,
Dan
FWIW the version of the B2030A sold in the US had (has?) a "waveguide loaded metal dome" (not a ribbon) which may or may not be the same as the one in the B2031P. Other than that what you wrote is correct. I have a pair of B2030A, and they are excellent for the price. They are no match for my ORION, though . . .
I'm not sure what you mean by agenda. If it means having an opinion and arguing for it then that is something a lot of people have on this thread. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what is the "agenda" and what is wrong with it.
cardioid - DI (horizontal and Vertical)
Originally Posted by ThorstenL
it is SO EASY to make a system that is cardioid from the bass upwards, so it should be non too difficult to make a system with a DI (horizontal and Vertical) of around 6dB constant up to around 5 - 12KHz (depending on the precise tweeter used)
Hi,
Could you point us to a webpage, or elaborate?
Thanks
Originally Posted by ThorstenL
it is SO EASY to make a system that is cardioid from the bass upwards, so it should be non too difficult to make a system with a DI (horizontal and Vertical) of around 6dB constant up to around 5 - 12KHz (depending on the precise tweeter used)
Hi,
Could you point us to a webpage, or elaborate?
Thanks
Hi,
Yup. But note that boconnor has the B3031A, which has a ribbon teeter, not the B2030/31.
Funny you should say that. This seems to disagree with Messrs Krueger and Noisaine. Have you ABX tested this?
😀
Ciao T
Yup. But note that boconnor has the B3031A, which has a ribbon teeter, not the B2030/31.
Funny you should say that. This seems to disagree with Messrs Krueger and Noisaine. Have you ABX tested this?
😀
Ciao T
Hi,
I don't know any that describes my take, but you chack how ME-Geithain are doing it...
musikelectronic geithain
Ciao T
I don't know any that describes my take, but you chack how ME-Geithain are doing it...
musikelectronic geithain
Ciao T
Side by side in the same room. Hard to "ABX" though, because the difference is so immediately obvious . . . 😀
Couldn't you just put felt strips adjacent to the tweeters instead of stuffing the ports?FWIW on that Behringer 2031, I'd mod the cabinet as well--rather first.
Look at this response:
Then with the ports stuffed with cotton:
Many other cheap and practical mods available, but that one is an obvious and easily noticeable improvement anyone can quickly do w/o even a screwdriver or duct tape.
Dan
