Out of boredom and the need for a decent set of PC speakers I recently purchased a pair of the 2031P monitors. At $120 each delivered I must say despite the low-class looks they are very good. These could be prescribed for beer budget audiophilia nervosa sufferers. Absolutely no reoccurrence of the desire to build "cheap" speakers as they set the bar pretty high. However an unintended side effect may be that one may look to build something upscale with all the money they are now saving...
Hi,
Just a hint, a while back I nearly bought a pair of Samson Rubicon 6 Monitors with the Matching Sub, only lack of availability and unwillingness of shops to sell their shop floor models at a significant discount stopped that.
Given their price I would suspect a system with Behringer B3030A Monitors and matching B2092A Sub should make a swell system. I am sure some modest modifications (such as replacing the SMD resistors with Melf and better capacitors) would majorly upgrade the Behringer Electronics, last time I looked the Amp Chip's where basically "Gainclone" Chips.
I could imagine a seriously hotrodded B3030A & B2092A System would take some serious beating.
Ciao T
Just a hint, a while back I nearly bought a pair of Samson Rubicon 6 Monitors with the Matching Sub, only lack of availability and unwillingness of shops to sell their shop floor models at a significant discount stopped that.
Given their price I would suspect a system with Behringer B3030A Monitors and matching B2092A Sub should make a swell system. I am sure some modest modifications (such as replacing the SMD resistors with Melf and better capacitors) would majorly upgrade the Behringer Electronics, last time I looked the Amp Chip's where basically "Gainclone" Chips.
I could imagine a seriously hotrodded B3030A & B2092A System would take some serious beating.
Ciao T
OT: Has the thread title been changed? IIRC it said WTF... (i.e. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, often used to express utter surprise)
Similar to Dan, (out of boredom) I recently purchased a pair of B2030P monitors.
I hope the pair I received are not indicative of some sort of quality control problem, but it was immediately obvious the two speakers didn't sound the same. Upon further examination I found the two woofers (even though marked exactly the same) have completely different T/S parameters. And one driver appears to be a nominal 4 ohm impedance and the other 8 ohm. Very weird. 🙂
If anybody's interested I've also drawn the crossover schematic for these speakers.
Cheers,
Dave.
I hope the pair I received are not indicative of some sort of quality control problem, but it was immediately obvious the two speakers didn't sound the same. Upon further examination I found the two woofers (even though marked exactly the same) have completely different T/S parameters. And one driver appears to be a nominal 4 ohm impedance and the other 8 ohm. Very weird. 🙂
If anybody's interested I've also drawn the crossover schematic for these speakers.
Cheers,
Dave.
this test in the original starting post seems quite strange.
say.. go to a car hi-fi spl drag race, pick 30 persons, and show them a dipole vs some junk + loud 4th order bandpass sub ABX test, i would take it that majority will vote for anything that can shake the belly better.
say.. go to a car hi-fi spl drag race, pick 30 persons, and show them a dipole vs some junk + loud 4th order bandpass sub ABX test, i would take it that majority will vote for anything that can shake the belly better.
Sounds like somebody split your pair...
Hey Dave,
Will you post up your serial numbers? The pair should have been double boxed into one outer carton with sequential serial numbers on the outer carton. Odd thing is the sequence is not at the end of the number, tell us what you find will you???
Hey Dave,
Will you post up your serial numbers? The pair should have been double boxed into one outer carton with sequential serial numbers on the outer carton. Odd thing is the sequence is not at the end of the number, tell us what you find will you???
These are:
S1101643194
S1101644194
Date code: 11 05
Are you going to get me in trouble with that information? 🙂
Dave.
S1101643194
S1101644194
Date code: 11 05
Are you going to get me in trouble with that information? 🙂
Dave.
Man that's whacked that you have oddball drivers in there, that's a sequential pair.
with these two #'s I can assume your identity and make you famous- or is that infamous??? 😀😀😀
with these two #'s I can assume your identity and make you famous- or is that infamous??? 😀😀😀
Hey Davey,
You are in luck the service station is in WA(Auburn, WA 98001), RMA those so they can fix their mistake.
BEHRINGER: Warranty and Service Information
You are in luck the service station is in WA(Auburn, WA 98001), RMA those so they can fix their mistake.
BEHRINGER: Warranty and Service Information
Last edited:
When assembling the drivers, Chinese are not scared to use different ferrite grades on the same chain. I've got the case.
I guess they copyed also element design from Genelec like whole speaker.🙄
http://www.genelec.fi/documents/datasheets/DS1030a.pdf
http://www.genelec.fi/documents/datasheets/DS1031a.pdf
Funny story but not true, Genelec's are made here in Finland. I visited their factory last year and was bit suprised that even pcb's are P&P and wave soldered in house.
Behringer has a bit of a history ripping off other peoples designs, from the relevant wiki page:
Legal cases
In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages[18][19] but such claims were later rejected by the court. In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.[20] The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.[20] The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.[20] On November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws.[21][22]
In 2005, Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's recently released guitar pedals.[23] The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs.[24]
In 2009 Peavey Electronics Corp. filed two lawsuits against various companies under Behringer/Music Group umbrella for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition.[25] In 2011 The Music Group filed a lawsuit against Peavey for "false advertising, false patent marking and unfair competition". Basically, the lawsuit was about Peavey also failing to comply with the same FCC regulations Behringer had troubles with, which was felt to create unfair competitive advantage.[26]
Behringer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legal cases
In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages[18][19] but such claims were later rejected by the court. In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.[20] The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.[20] The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.[20] On November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws.[21][22]
In 2005, Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's recently released guitar pedals.[23] The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs.[24]
In 2009 Peavey Electronics Corp. filed two lawsuits against various companies under Behringer/Music Group umbrella for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition.[25] In 2011 The Music Group filed a lawsuit against Peavey for "false advertising, false patent marking and unfair competition". Basically, the lawsuit was about Peavey also failing to comply with the same FCC regulations Behringer had troubles with, which was felt to create unfair competitive advantage.[26]
Behringer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LX521
It would be interesting to see the same ABX test with the LX521 instead of the Orion.
Anyone draw a significant conclusion from the original "Siegfried Challenge Report," in particular the differences between a constant directivity waveguide loudpseaker vs an open baffle dipole?
Is there a significant effect on the Auditory Scene (AS) or "soundstage" of the two designs to justify the difference in cost between a less expensive waveguide vs LX521/Orion?
It would be interesting to see the same ABX test with the LX521 instead of the Orion.
Anyone draw a significant conclusion from the original "Siegfried Challenge Report," in particular the differences between a constant directivity waveguide loudpseaker vs an open baffle dipole?
Is there a significant effect on the Auditory Scene (AS) or "soundstage" of the two designs to justify the difference in cost between a less expensive waveguide vs LX521/Orion?
I've a pair of the smaller Behringers (B2030A) back home. They sound good, and will comfortably wipe the floor with anything at Richer Sounds at up to ~£1500 for speakers plus amp.
I'm not going to go into the business decisions of Behringer. They're probably no worse than any other large manufacturer.
Chris