They do blow away the Behringers.
To me they do.
They have a different radiation pattern. I had to give up the top end to gain something much more important for a studio monitor.... Less room interaction that colors the sound.
The off axis top end is not as important as CD down to 0 Hz.
How controled is the Behringer in the low frequencies?
Do you think it's s easier to deal with a 4 kH and higher wall reflection when listening in the nearield, or 900 Hz and lower disconected monopolar radiation pattern in a studio mixing room setting?
I know you design waveguide speakers yourself, but you cant possibly refute this claim.
Furthermore, the Behringer is a reflex design. Inferior to OB in mine and alot of others minds.
Now obviously I love the Behringers, I own them.
I'm not saying I could do better as far as selling them retail and making a profit, but for a diy'er. We can do better because we don't have to follow the rules of the masses, and we are not selling our designs for profit.
And what do you mean low resolution?
I gave a raw FR as the second example.
And when did I say "yeah but?"
I gave the example of the tradeoff that had to be made for a more important asset for a studio monitor.
Last edited:
Very good review Jason. I enjoyed the time with you and your beautiful and very audio savvy girlfriend Evelyn. I think the demos went great for both sets of speakers, mine doing their thing as planned and the Behringers showing me again what regular speakers sound like. Again, what I hear with most regular direct sound speakers is fine enough depth in the center, but when there are extreme L and R sounds, they are heard more right at the speaker grills.
Jason's critique of the at times fuzzy focus and size of small groups - I can't completely disagree with his impressions, but I have found that the more high freq sound content there is, the sharper the focus. So if you have close-miked, highly focused sounds with some hi freq content, they are very holographic, which I should have shown him with the Sheffield Drum Record. You can almost "see" every part of the drum kit positioned in free space.
Thanks Jason for a great evening!
Gary
Jason's critique of the at times fuzzy focus and size of small groups - I can't completely disagree with his impressions, but I have found that the more high freq sound content there is, the sharper the focus. So if you have close-miked, highly focused sounds with some hi freq content, they are very holographic, which I should have shown him with the Sheffield Drum Record. You can almost "see" every part of the drum kit positioned in free space.
Thanks Jason for a great evening!
Gary
Look, I don't have any desire to try to pick apart your speakers at all, let alone in this thread, but any DSP speaker can look fabulous in FR from one measurement point, so if you want to make claims about being better than some other speaker to somebody like Earl, you can't post the one single-point decent-resolution measurement (without conditions stated) and then a super-smoothed set of off-axis responses also without specifics, and expect a different response than what you got there. Don't double down on your claims, post better data if you want to debate "show-me-the-data" people, and don't if you don't, no argument necessary.
Who's arguing?
I'm explaining.
I will remeasure unsmoothed if need be.
The measurement is smoothed off axis to better show the major fluctuation after 4kH.
This is only one example of a speaker design of mine that outperforms the Behringers.
I've built omni's, line arrays, focused arrays, quarter wave speakers, open bafles, full range, flooders,
MTM's CD with and without waveguides, Just about every type of speaker you can imagine... Excluding large horns.
The point being. Let's not get stuck on constant directivity soundwave propagation to be the end all be all of sound reproduction anyway.
Although I feel I have done a better job than Behringer in that regard as well.
Furthermore, what has behringer done new here?
Besides going to china and mass producing an already tested and successful speaker concept?
I'm explaining.
I will remeasure unsmoothed if need be.
The measurement is smoothed off axis to better show the major fluctuation after 4kH.
This is only one example of a speaker design of mine that outperforms the Behringers.
I've built omni's, line arrays, focused arrays, quarter wave speakers, open bafles, full range, flooders,
MTM's CD with and without waveguides, Just about every type of speaker you can imagine... Excluding large horns.
The point being. Let's not get stuck on constant directivity soundwave propagation to be the end all be all of sound reproduction anyway.
Although I feel I have done a better job than Behringer in that regard as well.
Furthermore, what has behringer done new here?
Besides going to china and mass producing an already tested and successful speaker concept?
If you want to make specific claims relative to other speakers, yeah, and with detailed conditions. I'm not asking for it, though; I'm not super intrigued by your claims of besting Behringer at the desk 😉. I'd totally be interested enough to check out the data, though.
If you add "and doing a competent job with their cheap bits instead of totally botching the whole thing" to the end of that, yeah, that was it I think. Cheap is the headline.
(edit: I'm not trying to be dismissive of the people that made that work, it's just really far from the DIY process so there doesn't seem much point in discussing it here)
Last edited:
Thank you gary and I would like to discuss your speaker more on this thread but we seem to be stuck yet again on the great and all mighty behringers 🙄
Your speaker won the darn contest.
If anything we should be compairing the IMP to the orions.
Seeing how they have a lot of similarities.
What's the most interesting is that yours produce stronger reflections, which shows that the "auditory scene" may rely more on reflective rather than direct sound even more than SL proclaims.
Then again, the IMP's direct sound is only 3 dB down from the rear firing panels so, by the time it reaches the ears, they may have the same amplitude.
Or is it a reminder for the hearing what to "look" for when listening to those speakers? Something to bias perception in a certain way.
Stereo reproduction is highly artificial and the original is what was heard in the studio. Hence such test are useless because it's totally unknown to the listener how the original sounds.
Yes only 3 to 6 dB down in the direct sound, which is interesting. What I think I want is just enough down to release the sound from the speaker locations and put it in the room, as you heard. But I haven't done extensive experimenting with those ratios, which I should. I should start out with full omni and go from there. Obviously I could also turn them around 180° and have more direct than reflected just for the hell of it. Anyway, I have the flexibility there, which is how speakers should be designed. The reproduction problem is an acoustical one, not an "accuracy" one.
Now riddle me this: My system has been critiqued a few times now for making everything the same size, namely the size of my room. But don't the Behringers and all other speakers have the same problem? We hear the presentation in front of us, no matter what it is. If the Behringers are placed 10 ft apart, do we not hear all recordings played on them as being 10 ft wide?
Perhaps the only way around this is with Ambiophonics, which is a head-related system that has a chance of isolating your ears from the actual room and the actual speaker separation and putting them in a different environment. I would really love to hear Ralph's system and yours if you are doing Ambio.
You talked about building one room into a padded cell of an anechoic environment. Be careful and don't go too far with that - if it gets too anechoic it will sound terrible, even with Ambio and even for recording. Floyd told me once that he listened to Ambisonics (full peripheral) in an anechoic chamber, and was surprised to find In Head Localization! Sound needs the room for you to be able to externalize the localizations, even if it is recorded with a dummy head.
Gary
Now riddle me this: My system has been critiqued a few times now for making everything the same size, namely the size of my room. But don't the Behringers and all other speakers have the same problem? We hear the presentation in front of us, no matter what it is. If the Behringers are placed 10 ft apart, do we not hear all recordings played on them as being 10 ft wide?
Perhaps the only way around this is with Ambiophonics, which is a head-related system that has a chance of isolating your ears from the actual room and the actual speaker separation and putting them in a different environment. I would really love to hear Ralph's system and yours if you are doing Ambio.
You talked about building one room into a padded cell of an anechoic environment. Be careful and don't go too far with that - if it gets too anechoic it will sound terrible, even with Ambio and even for recording. Floyd told me once that he listened to Ambisonics (full peripheral) in an anechoic chamber, and was surprised to find In Head Localization! Sound needs the room for you to be able to externalize the localizations, even if it is recorded with a dummy head.
Gary
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
Having been part of the study being discussed, let me point out that there really wasn't a "winner". No speaker was statistically any better than any other, they were all basically the same, which, in a very real sense was a big loss to the Orion since it should have come out on top, given its reputation, but it didn't. In terms of measurements, which I did on all three, the Behringer was clearly the best and arguably the best sounding, but the test results were not clear on that outcome.
Earl, Siegfried and I have some misgivings about that test. First, there were only three cuts played for the whole test. I tried to suggest some more critical music selections but they would have none of it. Second, I am not sure that my speakers were included in the further testing, but I know that he kept the Behringers on the "B" position of the switch, which means that everyone would know which sound was the Behringers. I must review the paper again and see if he really said all speakers sound the same.
Gary
Having been part of the study being discussed, let me point out that there really wasn't a "winner". No speaker was statistically any better than any other, they were all basically the same, which, in a very real sense was a big loss to the Orion since it should have come out on top, given its reputation, but it didn't. In terms of measurements, which I did on all three, the Behringer was clearly the best and arguably the best sounding, but the test results were not clear on that outcome.
Earl, Siegfried and I have some misgivings about that test. First, there were only three cuts played for the whole test. I tried to suggest some more critical music selections but they would have none of it. Second, I am not sure that my speakers were included in the further testing, but I know that he kept the Behringers on the "B" position of the switch, which means that everyone would know which sound was the Behringers. I must review the paper again and see if he really said all speakers sound the same.
Gary
IMHO, the Behringers really ought to be used against a wall. Studio monitors are rarely not-against-a-wall. Waving aside cabinet diffraction for a moment, that'd give a power response that gradually widens to 180 degrees at LF.
Different radiation patterns really ought to have different positions in-room. What about those 90-degree horns, where they're recommended as corner loaded? I don't think it'd be fair to drag those out into the middle of the room.
Chris
Different radiation patterns really ought to have different positions in-room. What about those 90-degree horns, where they're recommended as corner loaded? I don't think it'd be fair to drag those out into the middle of the room.
Chris
Hi Gary, he didn't say that, I did, based on what he told me about the results, that they were all over the map, no consistency. To me that means that they were statistically the same even if they did al sound different.
This may be analysed already, but Bose 901 seems to have the same property as your IMP, by looking at the pics.
In Bose both rear sectors have 6dB more sound than the front sector due to the driver arrangements.
.
Attachments
324 pages... everyone is gettting real technical here and the designers are chiming in but what about us less inclined rookies, what should I get out of this discussion?
I am into holographic, wide soundstage, and natural sound. I was considering a Scan Speak speaker build but.... should I even?
Considering the "best diy" reputation of the Orion's and their extreme complexity.
Should I hang up my DIY hat and get myselfd a pair of Behringers?
I am into holographic, wide soundstage, and natural sound. I was considering a Scan Speak speaker build but.... should I even?
Considering the "best diy" reputation of the Orion's and their extreme complexity.
Should I hang up my DIY hat and get myselfd a pair of Behringers?
My opinion is that DIY is not for everyone. (Somewhat of a heresy here I suppose.) Of course speakers you build yourself will always "sound best", to you, that's Beranek's Law, but it takes some real skill and a lot of testing and development to get a speaker that can match what a professional company can do.
If you like the work and tinkering then it can be fun. But if all you want is the best sound with the least work then DIY is not the answer. Buy the Behringers.
No way brother.
The best part about diy for me is to constantly think of new ways of improving things.
That's why I read all these threads and participate in the discussion.
I pick apart other designs and understand the trade offs that have been made, then I try to improve on them.
This just creates more trade offs but, after a while I come to understand
what trade offs I can deal with.
If you just want good sounding speakers then you wouldn't even be here, you want to create something interesting. Invent something.
I agree with Geddes. I enjoy tinkering, but that's for fun. For serious listening I use commercial designs.
But I use his speakers, not the Behringers 🙂
I also have some Kefs and some Vandersteens.
Never hang up the DIY hat 😀
If you're not interested in the design part of things, there are still less complex existing kits available that will blow the behringers measurably out of the water without getting into complex analog circuits like the Orions:
The Seas KINGRO4Y.
John K's Nao Note MiniDSP.
Ryan Bouma's Elusive 1099.
DIY Sound Group Alpha-12 Zephyr.
Mark K's ER18DXT.
Dan Neubecker's Chameleons.
Jeff Bagby's Sopranos.
I think you can still get your hands on some Abbey kits too, though Dr. Geddes would have to confirm that.
Beyond that, really, never simply discount the test conditions that suggest the Behringers are equal to the Orions. In those test conditions, I'm sure they are. That doesn't mean they would be in all test conditions.
Last edited:
You sure about that?
If there's one thing I've found from owning an assortment of speakers, there's no way to 'blow a speaker out of the water.' It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a problem, there's always compromises.
My Vandersteens have wider bandwidth than my Summas, but my Summas are more dynamic.
My Vandersteens image better than my Kefs, but my Kefs have a wider sweet spot.
See what I'm getting at? It's not POSSIBLE to 'blow away' a good design. All you can do is decide what compromises you can live with.
J.gordon holt summed it up best in his essay "why hifi experts disagree" (it's on YouTube)