Pro vs Consumer speaker reviews?

R

Reorx

Full Audioholic
I've been a big fan of Pro gear over Consumer.
My wife and I have listened to many brands of speakers trying to find a replacement for my aging, bulky setup. klipsh, Polk, Martian Logan, Paradigm, and crap from Bestbuy, Fry's Electronics, Ultimate Electronics to name a few.
We've been disappointed.
RBH is next on my list next week (MC lineup, maybe Signatures). I know there are more brands, we just havent had the time.

A few weeks ago, I went to go listen to some $100 headphones for a possible purchase, at a local pro shop. They had some very nice looking and sounding JBL's. Listening to it using a Dvd-audio disc that I brought in, it took my breath away. Of course if could of just been all the acustical panels setup, the perfect calibration, and the $300k+ mixing boards, etc. Or just a placibo effect.

They had both LSR6300, LSR4300 models setup in a ~25ftx40ftx30ft room
http://www.jblpro.com/products/recording&broadcast/index.html

I'll come to my point.
We've seen reviews of consumer speakers costing $2k+, can we get a few reviews of Pro-sumer gear that's in the same price range?

How does the pro-gear sound compared to the consumer-gear?
Has anybody heard a side by side comparisons of pro-consumer gear or read any good reviews elsewhere?

I am not to worried about the substructure (external amps, etc). Just the speakers themselves.

Thanks.

Reorx
 
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
A few weeks ago, I went to go listen to some $100 headphones for a possible purchase, at a local pro shop. They had some very nice looking and sounding JBL's. Listening to it using a Dvd-audio disc that I brought in, it took my breath away. Of course if could of just been all the acustical panels setup, the perfect calibration, and the $300k+ mixing boards, etc. Or just a placibo effect.
Realize that home speakers have different requirements as compared to monitor speakers intended for use in a studio control room where almost no ambient reflections exist.

A monitor speaker is typically designed as such that it is flat in amplitude response on axis. However, the amplitude response usually varies considerably at even moderate off axis angles. Having a flat and smooth off axis response is critical in a home environment, where you have a large portion of untreated surfaces, and the reflected sound is going to arrive your ears at a later delayed time, and be compared by your brain with the direct arrival sound. In addition, resonances of the speaker cabinet system will be less audible in a room with no substantial ambient/reflections, such as a studio control room. In a normal room, such resonances will be be amplified in audibility, and the monitor design may not have been accounting for the audibility in a normal room, since implementing an effectively non-resonant cabinet can be expensive. But again, most consumer speakers seem to have serious problems with cabinet resonance as well, until you get into some upper end lines that are probably beyond your intended budget.

What I would do in your situation is to get the speaker with the flattest response on and off axis, and with as few resonances as possible. I would then put a high quality digital equalizer such as a Behringer DCX2496 (it's labeled as a crossover, but is has sophisticated e.q. and the ability to also integrate a subwoofer with any speakers perfectly) on the speaker amplifier so that you can customize the sound to your preference(s).

I don't know what speakers meet all of these requirements in the below $9k range. However, it is entirely possible to take a speaker with very good drivers and crossover, but has resonant cabinets, and then modify the cabinet internally to have substantially less resonant properties, bringing it up to par with the cabinets of the more expensive speaker systems. Because the cabinet is the biggest cost of a speaker system, you can find speaker systems with superb drivers/crossover, but that have compromised cabinets. Some of the RBH speakers for relative low cost have such properties that would make cabinet modification worthwhile, based on my review of 3rd party measurements.

BTW, the most effective cabinet modifications would result in substantial reduced internal volume. As a result the system's ported tuning would be affected and you would need to make the system effectively a sealed one. This would result in requirement of using a subwoofer with the system. There for, a 2 way ported bookshelf unit would be ideal for this modification. I recommend stereo subwoofers( one placed near each 2 way ), as this will have better integration than a single subwoofer in practical placement circumstances. There is a less agressive modification (with less positive effect) that will not reduce the volume significantly, and can usually be performed easily and at low cost. However, the modification will still result in some loss of port output SPL.

-Chris
 
Last edited:
N

Nick250

Audioholic Samurai
Chris I have been under the impression that one puts in place room treatments first, and EQ after that if the room treatments don't do all that is needed. The article I read a few years ago stated that room treatments "fix" the acoustical problem while EQing is more like "masking" the problem by removing certain frequencies and thus having a result that is not quite as complete as room treatments. I may not have this worded this correctly since it's been a while since I read the article. What's your take on this.

My only experience is that bass traps that have work wonders with my system. The boomieness is gone (I hate boominess) and I have a greater latitude in sub placement. My question relates to a home audio setting.

Nick
 
Last edited:
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Chris I have been under the impression that one puts in place room treatments first, and EQ after that if the room treatments don't do all that is needed. The article I read a few years ago stated that room treatments "fix" the acoustical problem while EQing is more like "masking" the problem by removing certain frequencies and thus having a result that is not quite as complete as room treatments. I may not have this worded this correctly since it's been a while since I read the article. What's your take on this.

My only experience is that bass traps that have work wonders with my system. The boomieness is gone (I hate boominess) and I have a greater latitude in sub placement. My question relates to a home audio setting.

Nick
Actually, you are talking of EQ for a different purpose. But optimally, one uses both EQ and room treatments to correct bass errors. Also note that the traditional popular bass room treatments can not normally have an appreciable effect on most of the range that a subwoofer operates within, such as frequencies <70Hz. In addition, the EQ can be used to simulate any type of bass sound that one so desires so far as subjective 'tightness'. But my reference to EQ here was in the capacity of tone shaping, to get the particular tonal balance that the user may prefer. This range of sound that is possible is huge if the speakers are neutral. But a non-audibly resonant cabinet system is of critical importance along with the drivers and crossover system for sound quality. If the speakers are highly flawed to begin with, the EQ is not going to be able to correct them.

-Chris
 
R

Reorx

Full Audioholic
WmAx,
I understand what your saying about on/off axis and the need for a eq for pro speakers, I didnt know that.
From reading around, it seems like these specific JBL speakers have a built in EQ, that makes these monitors much better in less then ideal rooms.
There are a couple intersting reviews below. And some interesting specs.

Analog Inputs : XLR, 1/4” Balanced, +4 dBu, -10 dBV
Digital Inputs : AES/EBU XLR, S/PDIF RCA
Data Connections : Harman HiQnet™ Network, USB, RMC Mic

http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/shop/flypage/product_id/13716

I havent been able to find a review yet where they are review in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup.
 
N

Nick250

Audioholic Samurai
Actually, you are talking of EQ for a different purpose. But optimally, one uses both EQ and room treatments to correct bass errors. Also note that the traditional popular bass room treatments can not normally have an appreciable effect on most of the range that a subwoofer operates within, such as frequencies <70Hz.
Hmmm, I am going to have to look it up and see what GIK claims for the Tri Traps below 70Hz. That said, the boominess is gone and that was goal number one. In fact all the lower frequencies seem "tighter" and cleaner, but maybe there is some placebo effect going on.

Nick

[Edit] The tests do not go below 50Hz and I don't know how to interperate what I see anyway. For consumer bass trapps, how do these stack up?

http://www.gikacoustics.com/images/product/A06_118_060505_A_Corr.pdf

In addition, the EQ can be used to simulate any type of bass sound that one so desires so far as subjective 'tightness'. But my reference to EQ here was in the capacity of tone shaping, to get the particular tonal balance that the user may prefer. This range of sound that is possible is huge if the speakers are neutral. But a non-audibly resonant cabinet system is of critical importance along with the drivers and crossover system for sound quality. If the speakers are highly flawed to begin with, the EQ is not going to be able to correct them.

-Chris
 
Last edited:
WmAx

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
Hmmm, I am going to have to look it up and see what GIK claims for the Tri Traps below 70Hz. That said, the boominess is gone and that was goal number one. In fact all the lower frequencies seem "tighter" and cleaner, but maybe there is some placebo effect going on.
As with anything, placebo is a factor. As for actual effect, again, below the frequency I specified (even at the frequency I specified) it is difficult to affect LF response by an appreciable amount in practical situations with broadband absorbers commonly used, and in the numbers commonly used. Now, there is not a black and white line where the effect stops. It is a gradual effect reduction. I refer to 70Hz only as an example of where the effect is already diminished of broadband room treatments in the circumstance previously specified. At 50Hz for example, almost no effect is present. And audible effect? Perhaps marginally in a direct A/B after carefully comparing several times. :)

-Chris
 
Last edited:
N

Nick250

Audioholic Samurai
As with anything, placebo is a factor. As for actual effect, again, below the frequency I specified (even at the frequency I specified) it is difficult to affect LF response by an appreciable amount in practical situations with broadband absorbers commonly used, and in the numbers commonly used. Now, there is not a black and white line where the effect stops. It is a gradual effect reduction. I refer to 70Hz only as an example of where the effect is already diminished of broadband room treatments in the circumstance previously specified. At 50Hz for example, almost no effect is present. And audible effect? Perhaps marginally in a direct A/B after carefully comparing several times. :)
-Chris
Thanks for filling in the blanks Chris. The Tri Traps did cure the boominess and that was my primary goal. Anything other improvement, real or imagined, is just a bonus.

Nick
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top