Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Samsung's Convergence
Samsung's Convergence
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th February 2020, 04:04 PM   #11
Patrick Bateman is offline Patrick Bateman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgofish View Post
In fairness some of the Harman speakers represent extremely good value because they are mass produced and therefore can be produced cheaply.The JBL Studio 590s for example were fantastic sounding speakers for not much money.They were designed by Greg Timbers and measured extremely well for a horn type speaker so as much design work and expertise probably went in to them as far more expensive speakers.


The Revels do seem to have a "house" sound but perhaps that is just down to them using SB Acoustic drivers which have a "house sound .Smooth and warm is how they tend to sound.
Something that blew my mind, was how my Yamaha DXR 12s were absolutely *transformed* with equalization.

Click the image to open in full size.

Here's the 'stock' response, measured outside.

When I first had them in my living room, they were no match for the Waslo Cosynes. The Yamaha's midrange was lackluster and the speaker obscured details in a recording.

A few months later, I measured the Yamahas in my room (instead of outside) and discovered that it had a HUMONGOUS peak in the bass. (You don't see the peak in this measurement because I used a gate. Also, putting the speaker in a room exaggerates the low frequencies.)

I used EQ to eliminate the bass peak, and flattened out the midrange, and suddenly the Yamaha was Hi-Fi.

I have a feeling that this is one of the challenges with a lot of well engineered commercial speakers. Basically the engineers make a competent design, and then the marketing team comes in and demands that the bass and treble are exaggerated. That exaggeration helps sell speakers, but it's not accurate.

Perhaps this is why studio and prosound speaker come with a bevy of tone controls: to flatten the 'stock' response curve.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 04:20 PM   #12
silverprout is offline silverprout  France
diyAudio Member
 
silverprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
The main reason that I DON'T do this, is that I think you can get quite close to the performance of the 4367 for a whole lot less money. (Hence, why I posted this thread!) I think you could probably replicate 95% of it's performance for 20% of the cost.
Excuse me but could you explain a little more what "performance" is talking about please ?
__________________
Things I Should Have Learned In School (But Probably Didn't)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 04:29 PM   #13
Patrick Bateman is offline Patrick Bateman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverprout View Post
Excuse me but could you explain a little more what "performance" is talking about please ?
Definitely!

The fundamental thing that I see with Samsung's portfolio (JBL / Revel / Infinity / Bang & Olufsen / etc ) is that they're chasing a house curve.

IE, if you spend $200 for a pair of JBL studio monitors, they're not going to sound all that different than a $15,000 set of JBL 4367s *at low levels.*

As you start to demand high SPL from them, the cheap JBLs are going to fall apart.

I experienced this in my own home: I replaced my Waslo Cosynes with a set of Kali LP6. The Kali LP6 is designed by Charles Sprinkle, formerly of JBL. The Kali measures incredibly well, but it just couldn't get loud enough to make my family happy. When watching TV and movies, everyone was complaining about the SPL limits. For comparison's sake, the Waslo Cosynes are 8X the size and their output capabilities is easily 10-20dB higher.

In a nutshell: Samsung is converging on a house curve, and when you buy a speaker from them, a lot of what you're paying for is "how loud can this go?" IE, even the cheapest speakers in the range are performing at a level that's unheard of, compared to speakers from 20 years ago. If you pay for the top of the line, you're largely paying more to generate more output.

Yes, the top of the line IS more transparent, but the difference between the bottom of the line and the top of the line is getting compressed.

For instance, 20 years ago, if you paid $500 for a set of home speakers, they often had mylar or paper tweeters if they were full-range. (JBL HLS 810, for example.) If they had soft dome tweeters, the bandwidth was severely compromised (Radio Shack Optimus Pro LX5.)

We're living in an interesting time, where there are speakers that retail for under $500 a pair that are truly Hi-Fi.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 04:41 PM   #14
silverprout is offline silverprout  France
diyAudio Member
 
silverprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
truly Hi-Fi.
A lot of cheap desings have this ability, implementation is E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G
A brain associated with time can beat anything at any price, animals have the sames ressources as humans but their hifi stuff are not as good.
__________________
Things I Should Have Learned In School (But Probably Didn't)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 06:16 PM   #15
kipman725 is offline kipman725  United Kingdom
Overly Enthusiastic
diyAudio Member
 
kipman725's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Warrington
Samsung's Convergence Send a message via MSN to kipman725
I agree with your second hand argument if your getting a big brand like JBL. However you do need to have 15,000USD upfront the other part of my jibe is any speaker is only so good and perhaps the money would be better spent on processing, amplifiers and room treatment. In fact perhaps the money would be better put towards a house move to get a better room.

Regarding the house curve, its close to what you get if you make a speaker anechoic flat and put it in a real room just with a bit more tilt.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 06:36 PM   #16
mark100 is offline mark100  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Samsung's Convergence
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
Something that blew my mind, was how my Yamaha DXR 12s were absolutely *transformed* with equalization.

Click the image to open in full size.

Here's the 'stock' response, measured outside.

When I first had them in my living room, they were no match for the Waslo Cosynes. The Yamaha's midrange was lackluster and the speaker obscured details in a recording.

A few months later, I measured the Yamahas in my room (instead of outside) and discovered that it had a HUMONGOUS peak in the bass. (You don't see the peak in this measurement because I used a gate. Also, putting the speaker in a room exaggerates the low frequencies.)

I used EQ to eliminate the bass peak, and flattened out the midrange, and suddenly the Yamaha was Hi-Fi.

I have a feeling that this is one of the challenges with a lot of well engineered commercial speakers. Basically the engineers make a competent design, and then the marketing team comes in and demands that the bass and treble are exaggerated. That exaggeration helps sell speakers, but it's not accurate.

Perhaps this is why studio and prosound speaker come with a bevy of tone controls: to flatten the 'stock' response curve.
Which "stock" setting were you measuring?
FOH or Monitor?
D-Contour Off ?

I also think marketing really gets carried away....
the Turbosound IQ series, when used with a X-32 or Midas mixer, have a number of presets to emulate other manufacturers' well regarded similar type speakers....
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 06:49 PM   #17
fluid is offline fluid  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
For instance, I could assemble a JBL 4367 from parts for about $4000. But if I try to sell it, it's going to be nearly impossible to find someone who wants to spend $500-$1000 for a DIY project.
A nice cabinet and finish is a big factor in the cost of commercial speakers. If can do that work yourself you can save a lot of money. It would also make it much easier to sell on afterwards, I have been lucky to sell my finished DIY speakers and electronics when I've moved on but the quality of the finish was a big factor in that process. People will buy them if they look like more like commercial products.

I also think prices are set on what the manufacturer thinks their target market will pay, some people would not buy something if it didn't cost a fortune because it couldn't possibly be any good


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
The fundamental thing that I see with Samsung's portfolio (JBL / Revel / Infinity / Bang & Olufsen / etc ) is that they're chasing a house curve.
They've been fairly clear that their house sound is flat anechoic and smooth off axis response. All of their speakers have it and the better ones seem to have the on axis and listening window measurements to be a good match. Not that you aren't aware of that anyway

Quote:
Originally Posted by kipman725 View Post

Regarding the house curve, its close to what you get if you make a speaker anechoic flat and put it in a real room just with a bit more tilt.
The differences in tilt come more form the directivity differences in the designs than any extra tilt being added from what I can see in their measurements. The on axis is always very flat anechoically but the different layout of drivers etc. lead to changes in the sound power
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 07:47 PM   #18
dwk123 is offline dwk123
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by fluid View Post
They've been fairly clear that their house sound is flat anechoic and smooth off axis response. All of their speakers have it and the better ones seem to have the on axis and listening window measurements to be a good match. Not that you aren't aware of that anyway
Yeah, I don't think there is much secret about what they're doing. They've probably done more blind listening tests/panels than anyone, and came up with a model that they claim accounts for 86% of the expressed preference of those listening panels. This isn't news - Earl Geddes was quoting this long ago. Smooth on-axis, smooth off-axis, with flat on-axis being better but a slight tilt being OK.
Over on ASR, they're now measuring speakers using the fancy automated Klippel NFS, and applying the Harmon preference metric to see how they evaluate. It's still a nascent effort, but does make me interested in digging into the math behind the metric. It seems a bit difficult to accept that 'frequency response is basically all that matters', but I haven't looked at the actual research to understand the type of variations etc that are accounted for.

Quote:
The differences in tilt come more form the directivity differences in the designs than any extra tilt being added from what I can see in their measurements. The on axis is always very flat anechoically but the different layout of drivers etc. lead to changes in the sound power
This is the piece that I still find interesting - how do you choose an appropriate directivity pattern based on your target environment? It seems reasonable to think that the bigger/better the room and the fewer the early reflections, the wider a pattern you can get away with. Smaller spaces with early reflections probably need a tighter pattern.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 08:43 PM   #19
Patrick Bateman is offline Patrick Bateman  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Patrick Bateman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark100 View Post
Which "stock" setting were you measuring?
FOH or Monitor?
D-Contour Off ?

I also think marketing really gets carried away....
the Turbosound IQ series, when used with a X-32 or Midas mixer, have a number of presets to emulate other manufacturers' well regarded similar type speakers....
D-Contour is "off"
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th February 2020, 09:37 PM   #20
fluid is offline fluid  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwk123 View Post
Yeah, I don't think there is much secret about what they're doing. They've probably done more blind listening tests/panels than anyone, and came up with a model that they claim accounts for 86% of the expressed preference of those listening panels
It's more like 96% when bass is considered in the metric. The 0.86 correlation came from a test of bookshelf speakers where bass was a confounding variable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwk123 View Post
Over on ASR, they're now measuring speakers using the fancy automated Klippel NFS, and applying the Harmon preference metric to see how they evaluate. It's still a nascent effort, but does make me interested in digging into the math behind the metric. It seems a bit difficult to accept that 'frequency response is basically all that matters', but I haven't looked at the actual research to understand the type of variations etc that are accounted for.
I'll have to have a look myself to see what they are doing. There is more to it than frequency response, polar uniformity and absence of resonances as Floyd Toole calls them. Bumps that appear in all the different anechoic measurements so are not position dependant, low Q ones being more audible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dwk123 View Post
This is the piece that I still find interesting - how do you choose an appropriate directivity pattern based on your target environment? It seems reasonable to think that the bigger/better the room and the fewer the early reflections, the wider a pattern you can get away with. Smaller spaces with early reflections probably need a tighter pattern.
A lot of that will come down to personal preference and genres of music listened to. All speakers with smooth response and good polars should sound good, splitting them from there could well be room and personal preference related.

I have routinely adjusted my speakers back to a very similar in room frequency balance, whether set by eye or ear it ends up being very near. It also happens to be similar to the preferred in room responses published by Floyd Toole.

Samsung's Convergence-listening-target-jpg

That exact target was found by varying a bunch of high shelving filters spaced roughly an octave apart from 75Hz onward. I varied the Q and gain until I was happy, pretty much the same result which has been returned to in different rooms with different levels of treatment.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Listening Target.jpg (69.7 KB, 416 views)
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Samsung's ConvergenceHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Active and pad passive speakers convergence SMourareau Multi-Way 2 5th March 2017 04:12 PM
Simulators and convergence rtarbell Everything Else 6 15th June 2006 08:04 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2020 diyAudio
Wiki