Sigberg Audio SBS.1 Active Loudspeaker Review

[Sigberg Audio]

Sorry, I realize I posted this in the wrong thread, it was supposed to go in the Manta thread here: https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/sigberg-audio-manta-dual-cardioid-active-speaker-development-thread.125195/page-6

Will reply there.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

I've written a guick guide to setting up our speakers (the advice covers both the SBS.1 and the upcoming Manta).

Setting up and getting the most out of your Sigberg Audio active speakers

This guide is for the Sigberg Audio SBS.1 and Manta active speakers. However, you may find advice here that is useful for other similar speakers as well. The goal of the guide is to help you get the best possible sound from your system.

www.sigbergaudio.no

 

[TLS Guy]

I've written a guick guide to setting up our speakers (the advice covers both the SBS.1 and the upcoming Manta).

Setting up and getting the most out of your Sigberg Audio active speakers

This guide is for the Sigberg Audio SBS.1 and Manta active speakers. However, you may find advice here that is useful for other similar speakers as well. The goal of the guide is to help you get the best possible sound from your system.

www.sigbergaudio.no

That seems very good. It is well written and easily understood with a lack of jargon. I love your advice about speaker spacing. Your advice is absolutely correct. Sometimes I think I am the only member with his mains properly spaced. Now we have nonsense propagated about front wide speakers, which you would never need if your mains were properly spaced.

I hope every member here reads this and takes note!

 

[Will Brink]

An interview I did with the owner of the company. We talk about the general pros/cons of active speakers for audiophiles, and details of the Sigberg Audio SBS.1 Active speaker with the owner of Sigberg Audio. I plan to do a review of the SBS.1 plus sub soon. I hope the info is of value:

 

[TLS Guy]

An interview I did with the owner of the company. We talk about the general pros/cons of active speakers for audiophiles, and details of the Sigberg Audio SBS.1 Active speaker with the owner of Sigberg Audio. I plan to do a review of the SBS.1 plus sub soon. I hope the info is of value:

This is a really important video, and corrects commonly held misunderstandings, including I regret to say even promulgated on this forum. Though I must point out these issues have been discussed at length over the years, but have not got the traction they should.

I agree with all the points made in this video. I started my first active design in 1976. That was pre computer software and measurement software for the home. So it took me until 1984 to get the speakers right, when the computers became available for home use. We did not have sub drivers back then, but the KEF B139 could do a good impersonation.

The one thing that I had already appreciated was the importance of really good midrange, with lots of power devoted to the lower midrange and upper bass.

These biamped speakers are now my rear backs. Two KEF B139s in a TL give an F3 of 24 Hz. I used a potent Dynaudio midrange driver and crossed over at 180 Hz active. This did the trick and devoted enough power resources to this crucial power band. The point is that handing over from subs higher than is now common place is a good idea. I agree with the generous overlap mentioned in this interview.

In my speakers here, I often mention there is no sub, which is actually disingenuous. Those SEAS Excel 10" drivers have an Fs of 20 Hz, and an x-max that exceeds a lot of sub drivers. Two of those drivers have the cone area of a 15" sub driver. However what they do allow is to off load the mid drivers, by one of those drivers in each speaker carrying the BSC signal. So this driver rolls off at 200 Hz first order and by 400 Hz transiting to second order roll off Power in this band is easily adjusted and set. Although I don't have Eq as such I can change components in the crossover until I get the perfect slopes I want, for the room and speaker locations. I also had the luxury of building a room with optimal dimensions. So this achieves exactly what was talked about in this video. The center has similar design features.

Sigberg are absolutely correct that all has to be properly balanced. Inadequate power resources in the upper bass and lower mid, lead to subs being overdriven. This is bad, and I find more the rule than the exception in the way systems tend to be run. So I actually do believe that it is optimal to have subs as part of an integrated holistic system. As I have pointed out a number of times speakers and subs should ideally form an integrated system. I also do not favor placing subs away from the mains. I think a good impulse response is important, and you can only achieve that with sub and mains in close proximity, or ideally as an integrated speaker. However I realize this is seldom practical. I just did it anyway, to test my notion that this was the optimal solution.

In our in wall great room system, I originally planned the crossover around the speaker roll offs. However, the biggest improvement I made was to increase the crossover frequency to 150 Hz. Since the center speakers is right above the sub driver, it forms an integrated system. So again confirming the resources required in the upper bass and lower mid. I have not changed any settings the AV room in over three years now.

In my view active speakers are definitely the way forward, and offer solutions to otherwise intractable problems. As an added bonus it will end the receiver nightmare. Yes, receivers are an absolute nightmare, especially as speakers and channels seem to be undergoing rapid metastasis at present.

So I wish companies like Sigberg Audio and Double Dutch every success.

So anyone planning a superior theater at this time, should be asking themselves continuously: - "Why am I not building and active system." Even very fine speakers like Perlisten, are still yesterday's technology and out of date on the drawing board, fine speakers though they may be.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

@Will Brink Thank you for having me, I really enjoyed our talk! I think it turned out to be an interesting discussion where we discussed active speakers in general, DSP, room correction, subwoofers, some audiophile myths and of course the SBS.1 speakers.

 

[Will Brink]

@Will Brink Thank you for having me, I really enjoyed our talk! I think it turned out to be an interesting discussion where we discussed active speakers in general, DSP, room correction, subwoofers, some audiophile myths and of course the SBS.1 speakers.

We covered a lot of ground for sure just about anyone into audio should get something from it. The SBS.1 is an extremaly versatile speaker system and I can see why it won Best Product 2022.

 

[Will Brink]

This is a really important video, and corrects commonly held misunderstandings, including I regret to say even promulgated on this forum. Though I must point out these issues have been discussed at length over the years, but have not got the traction they should.

I have seen the various issues discussed, but I felt without covering them all (unless I missed one) in one vid before talking about the SBS.1, was best to do the topic/speaker justice and perhaps get a few people considering actives who were on the fence to take a look. I doubt it will change the minds of the "real audiophiles don't use actives" group, that's their loss in my view. One of the most amazing systems I have ever heard, was from Meridian, which is a fully integrated active system. While it was an expensive system, it was less $ than a pair of high end speakers from say Wilson.

I agree with all the points made in this video. I started my first active design in 1976. That was pre computer software and measurement software for the home. So it took me until 1984 to get the speakers right, when the computers became available for home use. We did not have sub drivers back then, but the KEF B139 could do a good impersonation.

The one thing that I had already appreciated was the importance of really good midrange, with lots of power devoted to the lower midrange and upper bass.

These biamped speakers are now my rear backs. Two KEF B139s in a TL give an F3 of 24 Hz. I used a potent Dynaudio midrange driver and crossed over at 180 Hz active. This did the trick and devoted enough power resources to this crucial power band. The point is that handing over from subs higher than is now common place is a good idea. I agree with the generous overlap mentioned in this interview.

In my speakers here, I often mention there is no sub, which is actually disingenuous. Those SEAS Excel 10" drivers have an Fs of 20 Hz, and an x-max that exceeds a lot of sub drivers. Two of those drivers have the cone area of a 15" sub driver. However what they do allow is to off load the mid drivers, by one of those drivers in each speaker carrying the BSC signal. So this driver rolls off at 200 Hz first order and by 400 Hz transiting to second order roll off Power in this band is easily adjusted and set. Although I don't have Eq as such I can change components in the crossover until I get the perfect slopes I want, for the room and speaker locations. I also had the luxury of building a room with optimal dimensions. So this achieves exactly what was talked about in this video. The center has similar design features.

Some pics of the system? Sounds like a cool set up.

Sigberg are absolutely correct that all has to be properly balanced. Inadequate power resources in the upper bass and lower mid, lead to subs being overdriven. This is bad, and I find more the rule than the exception in the way systems tend to be run. So I actually do believe that it is optimal to have subs as part of an integrated holistic system. As I have pointed out a number of times speakers and subs should ideally form an integrated system. I also do not favor placing subs away from the mains. I think a good impulse response is important, and you can only achieve that with sub and mains in close proximity, or ideally as an integrated speaker. However I realize this is seldom practical. I just did it anyway, to test my notion that this was the optimal solution.

The SBS.1 seems fairly unique in that they are designed specifically to integrate with a sub or two. They're not designed to run stand alone and a sub is optional to get the best sound. As I said in the vid, a smart and "dangerous" concept.

In our in wall great room system, I originally planned the crossover around the speaker roll offs. However, the biggest improvement I made was to increase the crossover frequency to 150 Hz. Since the center speakers is right above the sub driver, it forms an integrated system. So again confirming the resources required in the upper bass and lower mid. I have not changed any settings the AV room in over three years now.

I'm strictly 2ch these days and don't have a HT system right now. As we discussed in the vid, some reject the use of subs in 2ch systems, and that's a mistake. I totally "get" how and why they come to that conclusion, but I also feel there's no system that does not benefit a lot to a little by the addition of a quality sub or two properly integrated. Modern tech has made that much easier too.

In my view active speakers are definitely the way forward, and offer solutions to otherwise intractable problems. As an added bonus it will end the receiver nightmare. Yes, receivers are an absolute nightmare, especially as speakers and channels seem to be undergoing rapid metastasis at present.

So I wish companies like Sigberg Audio and Double Dutch every success.

So anyone planning a superior theater at this time, should be asking themselves continuously: - "Why am I not building and active system." Even very fine speakers like Perlisten, are still yesterday's technology and out of date on the drawing board, fine speakers though they may be.

I have felt that way for a long time. Actives have been on my radar for decades, and perhaps the technology and culture are finally meeting and that's why so many legacy brands, and new brands like Sigberg, offering actives.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have seen the various issues discussed, but I felt without covering them all (unless I missed one) in one vid before talking about the SBS.1, was best to do the topic/speaker justice and perhaps get a few people considering actives who were on the fence to take a look. I doubt it will change the minds of the "real audiophiles don't use actives" group, that's their loss in my view. One of the most amazing systems I have ever heard, was from Meridian, which is a fully integrated active system. While it was an expensive system, it was less $ than a pair of high end speakers from say Wilson.



Some pics of the system? Sounds like a cool set up.



The SBS.1 seems fairly unique in that they are designed specifically to integrate with a sub or two. They're not designed to run stand alone and a sub is optional to get the best sound. As I said in the vid, a smart and "dangerous" concept.



I'm strictly 2ch these days and don't have a HT system right now. As we discussed in the vid, some reject the use of subs in 2ch systems, and that's a mistake. I totally "get" how and why they come to that conclusion, but I also feel there's no system that does not benefit a lot to a little by the addition of a quality sub or two properly integrated. Modern tech has made that much easier too.



I have felt that way for a long time. Actives have been on my radar for decades, and perhaps the technology and culture are finally meeting and that's why so many legacy brands, and new brands like Sigberg, offering actives.

I have seen the various issues discussed, but I felt without covering them all (unless I missed one) in one vid before talking about the SBS.1, was best to do the topic/speaker justice and perhaps get a few people considering actives who were on the fence to take a look. I doubt it will change the minds of the "real audiophiles don't use actives" group, that's their loss in my view. One of the most amazing systems I have ever heard, was from Meridian, which is a fully integrated active system. While it was an expensive system, it was less $ than a pair of high end speakers from say Wilson.



Some pics of the system? Sounds like a cool set up.



The SBS.1 seems fairly unique in that they are designed specifically to integrate with a sub or two. They're not designed to run stand alone and a sub is optional to get the best sound. As I said in the vid, a smart and "dangerous" concept.



I'm strictly 2ch these days and don't have a HT system right now. As we discussed in the vid, some reject the use of subs in 2ch systems, and that's a mistake. I totally "get" how and why they come to that conclusion, but I also feel there's no system that does not benefit a lot to a little by the addition of a quality sub or two properly integrated. Modern tech has made that much easier too.



I have felt that way for a long time. Actives have been on my radar for decades, and perhaps the technology and culture are finally meeting and that's why so many legacy brands, and new brands like Sigberg, offering actives.

Sorry for the tardy reply. Yes, I do have pictures, but members here will likely have seen them before.

The equipment consists of AV equipment an HTPC, a DAW loaded with WaveLab software and an RME mixer/Dac. There is a 16 channel mixer in the draw below. There is an assortment of vintage digital equipment, and especially of vintage disc and tape equipment, which I call the museum part of the system. There are three vintage turntable and vintage reel to reel equipment from Studer/Revox, and a rare Brenell MK 6 of the type used by the BBC, there are DOLBY A units and free standing dbx I and II decoders, including a dbx LP decoder and a free standing Dolby B decoder. There is a TEAC Z2000 cassette deck and a studio NAK deck.

The crossovers in the first rack are 3 modified Shure SR 106 crossovers for the front speakers, which I have had since the seventies sometime, and a Crown VFX-2 for the rear backs. I bought that in 1977. I personally did a total refurbishment about seven or eight years ago, and upgraded all the IC op-amp chips, to more modern lower noise devices.

This is part of the museum.

It can even play 78s

The system is powered by 18 power amp channels providing just over 3000 watts. This is provided by 7 Quad 909 amps and two Quad 405-2 amps.

These are the front speakers.

The left and right speakers are dual transmission line speakers with the lines tuned half an octave apart. The center is TL coaxial 2.5 way. Four Quad 909s power the front three.

Center TL which is a though wall design.

A main dual TL

This is a view of the rear of the room. You can see the surrounds, which are totally active and the bi-amped rear backs, which are also dual TLs, these were my main speakers from 1984 until 2006. The surrounds used to be my location monitors when I made broadcasts for the local radio station. They were built in 1984 and use Dynaudio drivers. The rear backs use two KEF B139s in each line and three Dynaudio drivers in each line, a cone mid, and dome mid and a 3/4" soft dome in each. These drivers use first order filters and are slightly staggered to optimize the phase response. These speakers were deigned in partnership with the good folks at Dynaudio, who were also designing a speaker using first order filters at the time. These speakers are powered by two Quad 909s. The surrounds are powered by one Quad 909.

Here is a picture of the rear packs at my previous location. I had to move this room in 2019.

This was the speaker being designed by Dynaudio at the time.

Because of the axis tilt they placed the tweeter at the bottom and the driver array was reversed. When you listened to these speakers they gave the curious impression of the musicians playing below the floor! I elected to place my tweeter high, which I believe was the better solution.

The ceiling speakers are four Mark Audio full range drivers in 0.25 cu.ft. sealed enclosures, crossed at 120 Hz. These are excellent full range drivers powered by two Quad 405-2 amps.

This is the FR of a main speaker on axis. I have lots of measurements and the off axis mirrors really well. The lower bass is purposely rolled off because of room gain.

This is the room curve at the MLP all speakers driven.

Center axis FR

I also have a 3.1 in wall system in our great room and a 2.1 system in our family room.

Lastly I know you favor ATC speakers, and they are excellent.

I paid a visit to Billy Woodman at the ATV factory out in the countryside wide Stroud Gloucestershire in he fall of 20011. I saw one of their famed ATC dome mids constructed. Here is a picture of their show room. I also have taken a picture of the chickens they keep their. One of the employee perks is to have a free supply of fresh eggs! There was an 1920s Fiat car there which they were working on. Unfortunately I omitted to photograph it.

 

[Will Brink]

Sorry for the tardy reply. Yes, I do have pictures, but members here will likely have seen them before.

All I can say is, wow! You sir are very serious about your audio.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

In connection with sound pressure testing of the upcoming Manta, I also did testing of the SBS.1. This due to the fact that current max spl spec (110dB@1m) for the SBS.1 is based on sine sweep compression tests from the development phase. Based on simulations and theoretic maximum pressure I knew this was too low, but I haven't gotten around to doing it more thoroughly until now.

A new test with CTA-2034 pink noise (which obviously have considerably more energy than a sweep) gave a way higher result, which also makes sense since we've measured 110dB at the listening position with zero audible compression in several different rooms.

The amp limiter stopped the fun at 116,7dB.
So I'll set the new official Maximum SPL @1m to 116dB per speaker.

Foot note: The Manta measured 122dB@1m.

 

[TLS Guy]

In connection with sound pressure testing of the upcoming Manta, I also did testing of the SBS.1. This due to the fact that current max spl spec (110dB@1m) for the SBS.1 is based on sine sweep compression tests from the development phase. Based on simulations and theoretic maximum pressure I knew this was too low, but I haven't gotten around to doing it more thoroughly until now.

A new test with CTA-2034 pink noise (which obviously have considerably more energy than a sweep) gave a way higher result, which also makes sense since we've measured 110dB at the listening position with zero audible compression in several different rooms.

The amp limiter stopped the fun at 116,7dB.
So I'll set the new official Maximum SPL @1m to 116dB per speaker.

Foot note: The Manta measured 122dB@1m.

122 db. is off the clock for a speaker that size!

 

[3db]

That seems very good. It is well written and easily understood with a lack of jargon. I love your advice about speaker spacing. Your advice is absolutely correct. Sometimes I think I am the only member with his mains properly spaced. Now we have nonsense propagated about front wide speakers, which you would never need if your mains were properly spaced.

I hope every member here reads this and takes note!

The article was well written but hardly what I call ground breaking about speaker placement. I have placed my speakers accordingly (when permitted) ever since I got into this hobby 30 years ago.

 

[Sigberg Audio]

The article was well written but hardly what I call ground breaking about speaker placement. I have placed my speakers accordingly (when permitted) ever since I got into this hobby 30 years ago.

The article is not intended to be groundbreaking. It is intended to help our customers set up our speakers so they can get a good starting point for good sound, in the case that they don't have the knowledge to do so already.

 

[TLS Guy]

The article is not intended to be groundbreaking. It is intended to help our customers set up our speakers so they can get a good starting point for good sound, in the case that they don't have the knowledge to do so already.

It does that very well.

 

[3db]

The article is not intended to be groundbreaking. It is intended to help our customers set up our speakers so they can get a good starting point for good sound, in the case that they don't have the knowledge to do so already.

I didnt think it was intended to be and my apologies. My response was more of a reaction to TLS generalization of all the people on this sight not knowing about speaker placement. I would dare say that most people here would know about speaker placement. If they don't, then most who lack the knowledge would ask. Sometimes a little humility would go a long way to improve communications on these forums.

I would like add that having that article shows that you value your customers. That to me speaks volume. Awesome job.

 

[ryanosaur]

Sometimes a little humility would go a long way to improve communications on these forums.

What would a forum be without every single person knowing everything and arguing about their superior knowledge?

...

B-O-R-I-N-G



Which is to say I agree. A little humility goes a long way.

 

[TLS Guy]

I didnt think it was intended to be and my apologies. My response was more of a reaction to TLS generalization of all the people on this sight not knowing about speaker placement. I would dare say that most people here would know about speaker placement. If they don't, then most who lack the knowledge would ask. Sometimes a little humility would go a long way to improve communications on these forums.

I would like add that having that article shows that you value your customers. That to me speaks volume. Awesome job.

When I see pictures of systems, I see many, and probably most, with the right and left speakers too close together.

 

[3db]

When I see pictures of systems, I see many, and probably most, with the right and left speakers too close together.

Many doesnt mean all. I have a ton of respect for you Mark. I really do. You have helped me out and I thank you. But when you start talking in absolute terms, or being nasty and pompous from the get go, I will call you out on that. Imagine how much more receptive people would be if you showed some level of kindness. I dont doubt your knowledge but I question the delivery of your information. I get it. I have a low tolerance for stupidity myself, even lower now since my wife passed. I give people the benefit of the doubt. If they persist on being ignorant, then and only then will I let them know.

 

[TLS Guy]

Many doesnt mean all. I have a ton of respect for you Mark. I really do. You have helped me out and I thank you. But when you start talking in absolute terms, or being nasty and pompous from the get go, I will call you out on that. Imagine how much more receptive people would be if you showed some level of kindness. I dont doubt your knowledge but I question the delivery of your information. I get it. I have a low tolerance for stupidity myself, even lower now since my wife passed. I give people the benefit of the doubt. If they persist on being ignorant, then and only then will I let them know.

I did not say all!