Sigberg Audio MANTA dual cardioid active speaker development thread

[Sigberg Audio]

The problem with neutral and AI designed speakers is that they are too clean to be able to translate the 'intentional' distortions of electric music. Eddie Van Halen dubbed it the "brown sound." There are no other genres that aim for that vibe, or use the amount of pedals and effects in which to inflict it. I keep thinking. . .wtf is missing. . .part of the air of this stage is missing entirely. So much so, that it tends to bring attention to the actual 'sterility' of the speaker, comparatively, instead.

Unless a designer has frequented something along the lines of an AC/DC or Ozzy Osborne (with Randy Rhoads), Nugent, ELP. . . just can't possibly know what rock and pop is supposed to vibe like, or an acceptable emulation of it after the fact. It's as particular of a quality as anything else worthy of experiencing. It drove all of us to buy the biggest honking stereos that could be had in mass and kept us involved until. . .now.

I have neutral speakers. It's hard to get away from it. How are you going to tell a computer to design a bad speaker? Who is willing to take the flack for stepping out of this rather new, unaccountable box? "Speaker measures perfectly flat, so it must be your sucky room. Sorry bout your luck." Is anyone really surprised when a new design measures acceptably flat? *yawn*

I agree with almost everything you're saying here. And I don't know if you've read through this thread in detail, but I've argued that to me, rock is a very important genre to use while designing our loudspeakers. Both because the complexity of the sound in a lot of rock is actually difficult to get right, and beause it's important to me that you can listen to your favorite tracks (be it pop or rock or other genres that the majority of people actually listen to) and actually have fun.

I wrote about this topic the other day on a Norwegian forum, based on the comments of another user, who was reflecting along the lines of If what you enjoy while listening to music are speakers that brings out the groove, life and drive in the music, why on earth do we all purchase gear that doesn't, despite the fact that they're "more correct"? - I think it was a very interesting question.

1. First of all, are the high-end speakers that are so piercingly "transparent" and "high resolution" that it becomes unbearable to listen to normal recordings actually more accurate? I don't believe so. If you look at the frequency response, often they're not even accurate from a theoretical perspective.
2. Secondly, of course we enjoy listening to speakers that brings out the groove, life and drive in the music - what the hell is the point if we have to listen to specific "hifi tracks" and can't enjoy the music we really like?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with accurate speakers, on the contrary I pride myself in building them. But does accurate mean flat response? Or does it mean smooth? And shouldn't it mean that it sounds right in-room when you listen to the music you like? It's difficult to make a perfect speaker for everything, because people value different things. I suspect what qualities you prefer is tied at least in part to what music genres you prefer.

So our speakers aren't perfectly flat, they have a slight emphasis on the important midbass. I find the alternative to sound thin in most rooms. If you want the same (or even more) in the bottom two octaves, that's up to you, since that can be adjusted by simply adjusting the subwoofer gain. The SBS.1 speakers also have a slight (1-2dB) recession around the 2-4khz area to ensure nothing sticks out in this sensitive area.

The point is that these deviations from flat aren't due to poor components or lacking crossover design. The speakers could have been perfectly flat if we wanted to. If you draw a slightly tilted line through the response of the SBS.1 speakers, the accuracy is better than +/-2dB through the entire frequency band. Combine this with high sensitivity and the ability to play bleeding loud with low distortion - well, in your own words, it vibes!

To try to explain this with good story telling in a way that makes people understand you can have both fun and high fidelity in the same package is difficult.

By the way, this is how our website frontpage looks at the moment:

 

[TLS Guy]

The problem with neutral and AI designed speakers is that they are too clean to be able to translate the 'intentional' distortions of electric music. Eddie Van Halen dubbed it the "brown sound." There are no other genres that aim for that vibe, or use the amount of pedals and effects in which to inflict it. I keep thinking. . .wtf is missing. . .part of the air of this stage is missing entirely. So much so, that it tends to bring attention to the actual 'sterility' of the speaker, comparatively, instead.

Unless a designer has frequented something along the lines of an AC/DC or Ozzy Osborne (with Randy Rhoads), Nugent, ELP. . . just can't possibly know what rock and pop is supposed to vibe like, or an acceptable emulation of it after the fact. It's as particular of a quality as anything else worthy of experiencing. It drove all of us to buy the biggest honking stereos that could be had in mass and kept us involved until. . .now.

I have neutral speakers. It's hard to get away from it. How are you going to tell a computer to design a bad speaker? Who is willing to take the flack for stepping out of this rather new, unaccountable box? "Speaker measures perfectly flat, so it must be your sucky room. Sorry bout your luck." Is anyone really surprised when a new design measures acceptably flat? *yawn*

I'm sorry, but that is largely nonsense. The speaker should reproduce whatever is fed into it. The speaker should NEVER become part of the performance.
The problem is that most studios that record this genre of music own absolutely awful speakers, to mix and use for post production.

So what you are really asking, is for your home speakers to be equally lousy. The problem is there will be no guarantee they will be lousy on the same way.

Speakers absolutely should not be designed with frequency response aberrations.

I welcome engineers here from time to time, to check mixes and productions. I think in every case highly significant changes are made.

As one engineer told me. You must have "speakers that don't lie!"

 

[MrBoat]

I'm sorry, but that is largely nonsense. The speaker should reproduce whatever is fed into it. The speaker should NEVER become part of the performance.
The problem is that most studios that record this genre of music own absolutely awful speakers, to mix and use for post production.

So what you are really asking, is for your home speakers to be equally lousy. The problem is there will be no guarantee they will be lousy on the same way.

Speakers absolutely should not be designed with frequency response aberrations.

I welcome engineers here from time to time, to check mixes and productions. I think in every case highly significant changes are made.

As one engineer told me. You must have "speakers that don't lie!"

How could someone in a studio, proving a recording on JBL L100 studio monitors in 1974, mix a recording for modern speakers and how would they have known? And why are so many people trying to find out why music no longer sounds like it should to them? I'm not imagining this. I am from the time when much of this music was made, and certainly did my share of concerts, warehouse band sit-ins, and about everything to do with the R&R genre that could be done as a fan. I can tell you that it is not the same, and the new speakers are simply too revealing.

How much personal experience do you have with rock music? Zero/zilch/goose egg. No matter what you say, and regardless the fact that I respect your knowledge of audio science well above my own, this is one instance that you simply will never have the experience to either know, or to care what we are on about with all of this. Most of these people who want to try other methods have tried yours, and the engineers ways completely and applied everything the engineers suggested. Me, I just want an aside to my best efforts for when I feel like scientifically 'slumming it.' There is time in life for all of the ways to do this.

I have yet to meet a classically trained ear that knew what was right for rock fans.

It so happens that I do have speakers that get it absolutely right and whenever I feel like hitting the hard stuff, that's always an option and I exercise it frequently, just to keep in touch with what I have learned from 50 years at this.

The Japanese engineers of the time had it figured out much better than they are given credit for now. JBL gets it, at least on their consumer lines, and we all know how you feel about JBL speakers and the West vs. East coast sound. And yet we saw JBL L100s in the homes and studios of the actual musicians themselves.

Finally, there is no set rules in audio. We are allowed to effect it how ever we please, right, or wrong, in which to suit us. There is no shortage of neutral, "properly" designed speakers. What's the first thing someone does to it when they get it in their room? They EQ the pee-pee out of it unless they happen to afford what amounts to some acoustically perfect space.

I thought the issue was my aging ears until I broke my old speakers out for a spin and found that rock music (especially the uncompressed stuff) still sounded right enough on them. It also sounds right on the 3-way JBL S38s I got from a forum member here.

I didn't say I was "right." Just that I want to do other things with audio than with the current absolutes the engineers prescribe.

 

[MrBoat]

I agree with almost everything you're saying here. And I don't know if you've read through this thread in detail, but I've argued that to me, rock is a very important genre to use while designing our loudspeakers. Both because the complexity of the sound in a lot of rock is actually difficult to get right, and beause it's important to me that you can listen to your favorite tracks (be it pop or rock or other genres that the majority of people actually listen to) and actually have fun.

I wrote about this topic the other day on a Norwegian forum, based on the comments of another user, who was reflecting along the lines of If what you enjoy while listening to music are speakers that brings out the groove, life and drive in the music, why on earth do we all purchase gear that doesn't, despite the fact that they're "more correct"? - I think it was a very interesting question.

1. First of all, are the high-end speakers that are so piercingly "transparent" and "high resolution" that it becomes unbearable to listen to normal recordings actually more accurate? I don't believe so. If you look at the frequency response, often they're not even accurate from a theoretical perspective.
2. Secondly, of course we enjoy listening to speakers that brings out the groove, life and drive in the music - what the hell is the point if we have to listen to specific "hifi tracks" and can't enjoy the music we really like?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with accurate speakers, on the contrary I pride myself in building them. But does accurate mean flat response? Or does it mean smooth? And shouldn't it mean that it sounds right in-room when you listen to the music you like? It's difficult to make a perfect speaker for everything, because people value different things. I suspect what qualities you prefer is tied at least in part to what music genres you prefer.

So our speakers aren't perfectly flat, they have a slight emphasis on the important midbass. I find the alternative to sound thin in most rooms. If you want the same (or even more) in the bottom two octaves, that's up to you, since that can be adjusted by simply adjusting the subwoofer gain. The SBS.1 speakers also have a slight (1-2dB) recession around the 2-4khz area to ensure nothing sticks out in this sensitive area.

The point is that these deviations from flat aren't due to poor components or lacking crossover design. The speakers could have been perfectly flat if we wanted to. If you draw a slightly tilted line through the response of the SBS.1 speakers, the accuracy is better than +/-2dB through the entire frequency band. Combine this with high sensitivity and the ability to play bleeding loud with low distortion - well, in your own words, it vibes!

To try to explain this with good story telling in a way that makes people understand you can have both fun and high fidelity in the same package is difficult.

I read this thread when you first posted it and hit it up a couple times but did not cruise all the way thru it last night.

I have a house full of different speakers that I like to listen to for different reasons. My Fusion-12s end up doing pretty good with everything but they are pickier with recordings than my 2 pairs of JBLs. Sometimes, I just want the party speakers. My test tone for those is the intro to Whitesnake's "Still of the Night" up around 90db. I can pretty much tell what the speaker is going to do for me just from that.

I'm more of a mid-bass head than sub-bass below 35hz or so. Low sub-bass amuses me on music created with it, but in classic rock and heavy metal, it often translates to subsonic distortion when listening at very high levels, IMO. Is it something I am doing wrong? Perhaps, but it is not pleasant, or needed with what I listen to. I am never moved to thinking that I wish the classics I listen to had more content below 35hz. As long as I get that solid and physical, mid-bass whuppin, I'm good. It's what most people are trying to explain when they desire sub-woofers that are "fast and tight."

The Eminence Delta Pro 12a paper woofers in my mains really get this kind of musical mid-bass right and you will feel it thru to your spine and you will turn your ear drums to mud before ever getting them to audibly distort. The woofers are also large/stiff enough so that they aren't travelling so wildly at 85+db (idling really) SPL, that they wrap up what mid-range is being shared with them either. An instance where displacement is more than just for SPL, and now we don't have to hand off so much of the mid-bass to subs, like we have to with baby speakers.

Aside from all this and all the angles with regard to listening to music, I mostly agree with what you are trying to achieve with your design and am glad to read you being accountable for it. I have a lot of accurate speakers and have some that are not so.

I am currently building a pair of speakers from one of my favorite (Paul Carmody) designers who seems to get what I want from most of my favorite music right. Getting audiophile grade recordings to sound excellent is not a challenge anymore. Those that can digest only that are destined for a life full of limited, perpetual repeats. His designs make me smile when I listen to them. So much so, in fact, I have openly admitted to handing in my audiophile card in exchange for fun.

I didn't think your deviations from perfectly flat was a fault. I followed this thread because you were daring to try something that works for all music, or for the fact that you understand that it all can't be fixed under a single, blanketed school of thought.

These are pretty darn neutral. 98db and rated from 10-500WRMS, IIRC. They are absolutely ridiculous and I have been working with these for 5 years now and have been all through what they will, and will not do. I EQ the highs down a touch, which is pretty much something I have done with every speaker I own. Absolutely love these.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

@MrBoat The Eminence driver looked good. 99dB sensitivity is impressive. The Manta driver is "only" 97dB. Paper cone as well.

 

[shadyJ]

How could someone in a studio, proving a recording on JBL L100 studio monitors in 1974, mix a recording for modern speakers and how would they have known? And why are so many people trying to find out why music no longer sounds like it should to them? I'm not imagining this. I am from the time when much of this music was made, and certainly did my share of concerts, warehouse band sit-ins, and about everything to do with the R&R genre that could be done as a fan. I can tell you that it is not the same, and the new speakers are simply too revealing.

How much personal experience do you have with rock music? Zero/zilch/goose egg. No matter what you say, and regardless the fact that I respect your knowledge of audio science well above my own, this is one instance that you simply will never have the experience to either know, or to care what we are on about with all of this. Most of these people who want to try other methods have tried yours, and the engineers ways completely and applied everything the engineers suggested. Me, I just want an aside to my best efforts for when I feel like scientifically 'slumming it.' There is time in life for all of the ways to do this.

I have yet to meet a classically trained ear that knew what was right for rock fans.

It so happens that I do have speakers that get it absolutely right and whenever I feel like hitting the hard stuff, that's always an option and I exercise it frequently, just to keep in touch with what I have learned from 50 years at this.

The Japanese engineers of the time had it figured out much better than they are given credit for now. JBL gets it, at least on their consumer lines, and we all know how you feel about JBL speakers and the West vs. East coast sound. And yet we saw JBL L100s in the homes and studios of the actual musicians themselves.

Finally, there is no set rules in audio. We are allowed to effect it how ever we please, right, or wrong, in which to suit us. There is no shortage of neutral, "properly" designed speakers. What's the first thing someone does to it when they get it in their room? They EQ the pee-pee out of it unless they happen to afford what amounts to some acoustically perfect space.

I thought the issue was my aging ears until I broke my old speakers out for a spin and found that rock music (especially the uncompressed stuff) still sounded right enough on them. It also sounds right on the 3-way JBL S38s I got from a forum member here.

I didn't say I was "right." Just that I want to do other things with audio than with the current absolutes the engineers prescribe.

Without getting too much into the philosophy of loudspeaker design, one advantage of neutral speakers is that they can be reliably EQ'd to taste. I agree not everyone is after the same sound signature, nor should they be, however, what people want has a lot to do with tonality, and that can simply be a matter of equalization. Buying different speakers for the purpose of getting just the right sound signature is an awfully inefficient way of equalizing the sound. It's better to get one speaker with a neutral start, that way you know what you like after equalization. If you get a speaker with oddball behavior, there is no telling where you will end up, even after equalization.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Without getting too much into the philosophy of loudspeaker design, one advantage of neutral speakers is that they can be reliably EQ'd to taste. I agree not everyone is after the same sound signature, nor should they be, however, what people want has a lot to do with tonality, and that can simply be a matter of equalization. Buying different speakers for the purpose of getting just the right sound signature is an awfully inefficient way of equalizing the sound. It's better to get one speaker with a neutral start, that way you know what you like after equalization. If you get a speaker with oddball behavior, there is no telling where you will end up, even after equalization.

Generally agree with this. Would also for the record point out that our speakers are generally smooth in their response and also consistent on/off-axis, which means despite not being perfectly flat (as in for instance slightly emphasized midbass) you could still EQ them to taste.

Secondly the intentional deviations from flat are still so small that it's less than the unintentional deviations of many other speakers. Even tracking a flat reference, both the SBS.1 and the Manta are within +/-3dB. And tracking the target reference (ever so slightly tilted) at the listening axis, they're +/-2dB.

SBS (+/-2dB-window at 15deg):

Finally, as I've argued before elsewhere, this perceived deviation from flat actually ends up as a straighter in-room curve in most room we've tested, as the 100-300hz area are often subject to severe dips caused by reflection. So one could argue that an anechoic response similar to this actually gives a truer in-room sound.

Here's the in-room curve of the Mantas during testing at the moment:

 

[MrBoat]

Without getting too much into the philosophy of loudspeaker design, one advantage of neutral speakers is that they can be reliably EQ'd to taste. I agree not everyone is after the same sound signature, nor should they be, however, what people want has a lot to do with tonality, and that can simply be a matter of equalization. Buying different speakers for the purpose of getting just the right sound signature is an awfully inefficient way of equalizing the sound. It's better to get one speaker with a neutral start, that way you know what you like after equalization. If you get a speaker with oddball behavior, there is no telling where you will end up, even after equalization.

Let me clarify a couple things about my post.

Without getting too much into the philosophy of loudspeaker design, one advantage of neutral speakers is that they can be reliably EQ'd to taste. I agree not everyone is after the same sound signature, nor should they be, however, what people want has a lot to do with tonality, and that can simply be a matter of equalization. Buying different speakers for the purpose of getting just the right sound signature is an awfully inefficient way of equalizing the sound. It's better to get one speaker with a neutral start, that way you know what you like after equalization. If you get a speaker with oddball behavior, there is no telling where you will end up, even after equalization.

Shady, what the engineers and packaged for internet rep types seem to have the most difficult time with, is that it is possible to listen to audio more than one way. I can listen your way, TLSs way, and the wrong way, as long as we're not trying to package and sell it as something else. I have been into EQ'ng speakers from the beginning. Of course when I arrived back on the audio mainstream, I was told I was no longer qualified to do so. at least by ear. I do it anyway. Never really takes much. My room tries to be a little bright near, and boomy in the far field. I don't have to concern myself with the latter so much.

It would be nice then if designers could accurately portray their "tone" to their customers, beyond warm, hot, detailed and neutral. They all pretty much have ll their designs in the same labeled box. Is why I don't even bother looking at the myriad of computer designed boutique brands that are out there now. Way too many to get it wrong with, if it's tonality that is the unicorn of all this.

I am just happy to see this designer try to work with R&R, instead of some concert hall flutist trying to tell me what Ozzy Osbourne is supposed to sound like, just because their job is music. Or someone that the farthest outside of the pedigreed genres they ever go is something like Indie.

All I commented on is what I find erroneous with regard to modern speaker design. No matter how well speakers are designed now, I still want someone believably versed in rock and roll, able to know exactly what tonal performance to expect instead of what amounts to. . ."technically, they should be able to play all music." So far, all I can get that from is the JBL and Cerwin Vega crowd, who have all but abandoned the new mainstream audiophilia.

 

[TLS Guy]

Let me clarify a couple things about my post.


Shady, what the engineers and packaged for internet rep types seem to have the most difficult time with, is that it is possible to listen to audio more than one way. I can listen your way, TLSs way, and the wrong way, as long as we're not trying to package and sell it as something else. I have been into EQ'ng speakers from the beginning. Of course when I arrived back on the audio mainstream, I was told I was no longer qualified to do so. at least by ear. I do it anyway. Never really takes much. My room tries to be a little bright near, and boomy in the far field. I don't have to concern myself with the latter so much.

It would be nice then if designers could accurately portray their "tone" to their customers, beyond warm, hot, detailed and neutral. They all pretty much have ll their designs in the same labeled box. Is why I don't even bother looking at the myriad of computer designed boutique brands that are out there now. Way too many to get it wrong with, if it's tonality that is the unicorn of all this.

I am just happy to see this designer try to work with R&R, instead of some concert hall flutist trying to tell me what Ozzy Osbourne is supposed to sound like, just because their job is music. Or someone that the farthest outside of the pedigreed genres they ever go is something like Indie.

All I commented on is what I find erroneous with regard to modern speaker design. No matter how well speakers are designed now, I still want someone believably versed in rock and roll, able to know exactly what tonal performance to expect instead of what amounts to. . ."technically, they should be able to play all music." So far, all I can get that from is the JBL and Cerwin Vega crowd, who have all but abandoned the new mainstream audiophilia.

Well what you are seeking is not possible. The ONLY way forward is accurate tonally neutral speakers. For one thing you can not improve a speaker with an axis response that is materially different from the off axis response. If you Eq it, you affect both the axis and off axis response. The result will always be not want you want.

Back in the 70s and early 80s the recording studios were equipped with either, Westlake, Altec, JBL or Electrovoice monitoring systems. They were all awful but in different ways. The Westlake and Altec systems though had a lot in common and these defined West Coast sound and JBL East coast. This comes about as you always mix and edit the final product to your monitors, for obvious reasons.

I used to visit Studio 21 in Winnipeg back in the 70s. They were the big dog in Winnipeg at the time. They had a Westlake Studio. I could not believe how awful that costly system was. The other thing about those systems, although the bass was tight, response fell off like a brick wall below 60 Hz, despite the large drivers.

Those systems had a narrow axis response, and the off axis response was unmentionable. So the engineer had to sit in a very narrow "sweet spot".

This is a Westlake studio.

So music of that era was mixed to highly compromised speakers systems of one variety or another, which gives them their unique sound. However it really is not possible to get back the final sound that the engineers left on the final master tape. You have just got used to the final result on whatever flawed speakers you listen on.

So having speakers that are not neutral does not help one bit. Using multiple speakers really is the height of impracticality.

Things are now improving as studio designers like ATC are building excellent speaker systems in studios. Below is an example.

About three years ago, I had an engineer here. He said my rig was most like the ATC designed studio he had previously been used to working in. This told me that mix and production engineers were tending to neutral speakers for recoding and production.

Lastly, I would assert that you can only use natural instruments that lack electronics for speaker evaluation as far as listening test are concerned. The reason is obvious, as you have no baseline on which to base your judgement. A good speaker system like I enjoy, will faithfully reproduce any acoustic instrument in a tonally accurate manner. If it passes that test, it will reproduce any electronic instrument as intended. I regard it as in no way acceptable to tweak a speaker for a particular genre of music. In this I site the Sigberg audio introduction of that BBC smiley into their axis response. This will soften the strings, but it takes the "bite" out of the brass.

 

[MrBoat]

.

 

[MrBoat]

Well what you are seeking is not possible. The ONLY way forward is accurate tonally neutral speakers. For one thing you can not improve a speaker with an axis response that is materially different from the off axis response. If you Eq it, you affect both the axis and off axis response. The result will always be not want you want.

Back in the 70s and early 80s the recording studios were equipped with either, Westlake, Altec, JBL or Electrovoice monitoring systems. They were all awful but in different ways. The Westlake and Altec systems though had a lot in common and these defined West Coast sound and JBL East coast. This comes about as you always mix and edit the final product to your monitors, for obvious reasons.

I used to visit Studio 21 in Winnipeg back in the 70s. They were the big dog in Winnipeg at the time. They had a Westlake Studio. I could not believe how awful that costly system was. The other thing about those systems, although the bass was tight, response fell off like a brick wall below 60 Hz, despite the large drivers.

Those systems had a narrow axis response, and the off axis response was unmentionable. So the engineer had to sit in a very narrow "sweet spot".

This is a Westlake studio.

So music of that era was mixed to highly compromised speakers systems of one variety or another, which gives them their unique sound. However it really is not possible to get back the final sound that the engineers left on the final master tape. You have just got used to the final result on whatever flawed speakers you listen on.

So having speakers that are not neutral does not help one bit. Using multiple speakers really is the height of impracticality.

Things are now improving as studio designers like ATC are building excellent speaker systems in studios. Below is an example.

About three years ago, I had an engineer here. He said my rig was most like the ATC designed studio he had previously been used to working in. This told me that mix and production engineers were tending to neutral speakers for recoding and production.

Lastly, I would assert that you can only use natural instruments that lack electronics for speaker evaluation as far as listening test are concerned. The reason is obvious, as you have no baseline on which to base your judgement. A good speaker system like I enjoy, will faithfully reproduce any acoustic instrument in a tonally accurate manner. If it passes that test, it will reproduce any electronic instrument as intended. I regard it as in no way acceptable to tweak a speaker for a particular genre of music. In this I site the Sigberg audio introduction of that BBC smiley into their axis response. This will soften the strings, but it takes the "bite" out of the brass.

Regardless, it was what it sounded like and it is good, still. Just different ways around it now. I historically used pretty much the exact opposite of a smiley. Mostly because the woofers were large enough and present enough to not need any EQ. The mids might have to be boosted to compete with the large woofer and tweeters left at flat, or ever so slightly reduced for those who listened without grilles. Boosting the mids did not take away from the quality. Mid range was typically out front, anyway. Lead electric guitar and vocals were the stars and that was who we were trying to hear more than anyone else. Bass players and drummers either had to be virtuoso level, or have gimmicks to even be noticed.

Acoustic music was never an issue, and where I came from, it cheated speaker quality more than telling any truth about it for any other use. Contemporary jazz yet another way to make crappy speakers sound better. Salesmen used to try using acoustic music to sell speakers. Is why we mostly brought our own music. If you get rock music to sound good on a speaker, everything of better recorded quality will sound that much better yet. Electric music, with all of it's distortion is starting at the bottom and everything is up from there. Starting from the top, and hoping it will perform down in the cheap seats is a crap shoot, EQ be damned.

The OP has emphasized mainstream music translation as part of this design. He's not the only one. You just can't get any brownie points on internet forums for admitting, or requesting such a thing. To dismiss the want as never having heard proper measuring speakers before is the easy way out and just signifies inexperience. Look at how many people you have to talk to now just to get good music in a residential setting. It used to be much easier than this.

Way too many speaker brands and way too many things to constantly upgrade? Spend $10k on a pair of speakers and then imagine it's your DAC that's holding them back? The amount of EQ it takes now is neither a smiley, or a frown. It's more like a grimace. Look how many people are turning to tube amps, and other weird technologies in which to get something a bit warmer than what "neutrality" is providing on it's own. This goes on across all brands and even the very best speaker types.

None of this makes you or any other qualified experts wrong, but you're just not right enough for everyone, or this would have been settled at least a decade ago. I am now starting to notice more and more people willing to admit that they want to fix their music to what they remember. I also can't remember any other time in all my audio history, so many complaints of "bright" speakers.

Imaging or soundstage are about the only guaranteed absolutes with these sim'd designs. I have not heard a reasonable performing speaker in the last 20 years that struggled with this, to the point where I actually take it for granted now. The rock music in the '70s was made to sound good on affordable, '70s style speakers. It worked for everybody except. . .audiophiles, which likely still make up the smallest piece of the music listening pie and who have always been hard to please. The Japanese were masters for the masses at this, and it was a whole lot of fun for everyone except. . .

 

[Sigberg Audio]

@TLS Guy

We are sharing Klippel measurements and technical information about our speakers, so we are not hiding anything here. It will be up to everyone to decide if this is for them based on both objective data, information about our design goals and subjective feedback from reviewers and customers. You personally seem to have a DIY setup you are very happy with, so you are not within the target audience.

I wish you could be here to listen to the Mantas, I don't know of any other way to convince you. We have somewhat different perspectives on this, which is fine. Let us just agree to disagree. This is driving the thread out on a tangential, and I will not change the design goals of our products either way.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I would also like to point out that we're not intentionally trying to make our speakers sound wrong, on the contrary we're trying to make them sound right for most people, in most rooms, on most genres of music.

If following the theoretical ideal of a perfectly flat anehoic response won't achieve that goal (and it won't), then it would be a bad idea to do that.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I guess I should also have pointed out earlier that since these are active speakers with DSP, they will come with different presets.

In addition to the default, reference tuning that we think is best, it will also come with a neutral (anechoically flat) tuning, as well as a warmer tuning with a gentle roll-off starting at 1khz for those with naked / reflective rooms or who just want less top end energy. So in essence both @MrBoat and @TLS Guy will get what they want.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

A similar discussion has been going on at ASR on the topic of the Kef Blade 2, based on the fact that the Blade (as well as several other of Kef's speakers) also have a slightly downward slope very similar to that of the Manta. Jack Oclee-Brown (VP of technology at Kef) just responded to that thread and confirmed that this was intentional, and why. In general his sentiments is very much in agreement with mine.

For those interested: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-blade-2-meta-frequency-response.40766/page-4#post-1450710

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Quick update:

We expect to start accepting pre-orders in March. Those who purchase during the pre-order period, and with that becoming among the world's first owners of these amazing speakers, are expected to receive their Mantas in August at the latest!

 

[TLS Guy]

@TLS Guy

We are sharing Klippel measurements and technical information about our speakers, so we are not hiding anything here. It will be up to everyone to decide if this is for them based on both objective data, information about our design goals and subjective feedback from reviewers and customers. You personally seem to have a DIY setup you are very happy with, so you are not within the target audience.

I wish you could be here to listen to the Mantas, I don't know of any other way to convince you. We have somewhat different perspectives on this, which is fine. Let us just agree to disagree. This is driving the thread out on a tangential, and I will not change the design goals of our products either way.

I don't think we are apart at all. You may well have very good reasons for making the adjustments you did. I just get to ask questions when I see a hint of the BBC smiley, but you room FRs look encouraging. Actually I am a big supporter of your design goals and approach. I absolutely believe your design approach is the future.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Some updated / confirmed physical specifications as well:

• The speakers are 36x60x35cm / 14x23.5x13.8 inches
• Weight per speaker: 24kg / 53lbs. Estimated total shipping weight with included stands (custom, one piece black steel stands): 60kg / 132lbs.
• Total height on the stands will be 107cm / 42 inches - with the tweeter at 96cm / 37,8 inches.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

Did sound pressure testing with CTA-2034 pink noise today.

So the Manta specs are now updated with Maximum SPL of 122dB@1m (per speaker)

 

[Sigberg Audio]

One step closer to opening the presales, product photos are now up on the website!

See the rest here: https://www.sigbergaudio.no/no/products/sigberg-audio-manta-1-active-speakers