TLS Guy -vs- Studio 100's

[GO-NAD!]

My general instinct is to try to better understand how those measurements and graphs correlate to the type of curve that the 75% majority prefer and look for a speaker to match. I'm not 100% on what manufacturers do deliberately but I'm looking at those graphs hard. You remember WmAx posting the FR curve and water fall plot earlier in the thread? I heard those speakers and I would be okay owning a pair of speakers with an identical response.

I'm still pretty clueless about the waterfall plot. As for those studios - I'd take 'em in a heartbeat, if they were offered. From the little bit I can glean from the graphs, the response can be addressed with room correction. I'd count on doing that with any speaker. Actually, if I were in the market, the Studio 20 would be on my list of contenders.

Later on I will try to find third party measurements for the Paradigm Sig 6, Sig 8, B&W 804s and Def Tech 7002 speakers just to know stuff about them. If other people trust their ears or are only swayed by in home auditions, that's fine with me. I like the numbers and have faith in reproducible tests.

I'd be interested in those as well, out of idle curiosity. Even though I'd need somebody to explain them to me. Using sock puppets. And interpretive dance.

As has been mentioned in this thread before, people become accustomed to a certain sound. So if your current speakers are inaccurate, there is a tendency for you preference to lie with a speaker that is similarly inaccurate. I'm pretty sure that such has been demonstrated with distorted car audio.

I'm accustomed to the sound in my living room - but I don't prefer it. But, I don't blame my speakers. There's a DCX 2496 in my immediate future...

I cringe when I hear one of those cars go by...

 

[Warpdrv]

I'm still pretty clueless about the waterfall plot. As for those studios - I'd take 'em in a heartbeat, if they were offered. From the little bit I can glean from the graphs, the response can be addressed with room correction. I'd count on doing that with any speaker. Actually, if I were in the market, the Studio 20 would be on my list of contenders.

For me it all depends on listening level, and the Studio's at upper SPL's the way I like to listen start to get harsh, and that is not something that any room correction can fix... its the nature of the beast.

For moderate to loud levels they are pretty good and sound decent, but I still have my complaints about them. For a medium priced speaker there is no question that they sound pretty darn good, better then most speakers I have heard in that price range for sure, but I wanted more

The Sigs certainly do it for me, but that is a whole different price bracket, and not everyone can stomach that in this economy.

 

[JerryLove]

I was wondering what that was all about...

One (anonymous coward) high-rep person abusing the system by neg-repping every post of mine he could find. I've filed a complaint or two on it.

On topic:
I hate this thread . The reason is simple. I want to like Paradigm. I do have and do like Paradigm. I've had some serious disagreements with TLS, but also respect his opinion quite a bit, and I have noticed in past and present listening portions of what he's criticized the Studios for (why I like the Studio 20s more than the larger models I think, as it doesn't have the same problems).

I find that my paradigms make me very happy watching movies, which tend to have "unreal" sound to begin with. I have issues with critical listening in some frequencies such that I prefer the sound of my Infinity RSIIIb. This is especially true on Classical and "real sounds" like water slapping wood or thunder. I plan on mostly getting away from Paradigm for music listening now and moving toward either Maggies or 800/802 B&Ws (if I can afford).

Except for my S2v1's, I expect my current 'digms to either end up in my parents or for sale. I love them, but I love other stuff more.

For reference: I'm using almost entirely Studio v3 line right now.

 

[GO-NAD!]

For me it all depends on listening level, and the Studio's at upper SPL's the way I like to listen start to get harsh, and that is not something that any room correction can fix... its the nature of the beast.

For moderate to loud levels they are pretty good and sound decent, but I still have my complaints about them. For a medium priced speaker there is no question that they sound pretty darn good, better then most speakers I have heard in that price range for sure, but I wanted more

The Sigs certainly do it for me, but that is a whole different price bracket, and not everyone can stomach that in this economy.

That's just the thing. I can wish I had Sigs all I want - I know I'll never have them (if I should win a lottery, that would change of course). So, I keep my desirables in the realm of the possible. It's something I can work towards with at least some hope of reaching the goal. I could afford them now - I just have to deal with a low-ish WAF. Typical response to any suggested upgrade: "If you have something that "works" now, why do you need to replace it?" Sigh....

 

[highfigh]

For me it all depends on listening level, and the Studio's at upper SPL's the way I like to listen start to get harsh, and that is not something that any room correction can fix... its the nature of the beast.

For moderate to loud levels they are pretty good and sound decent, but I still have my complaints about them. For a medium priced speaker there is no question that they sound pretty darn good, better then most speakers I have heard in that price range for sure, but I wanted more

The Sigs certainly do it for me, but that is a whole different price bracket, and not everyone can stomach that in this economy.

Actually, you might try measuring the RT60 of the room. When the reverberation is excessive, upper mids and higher often become harsh because they continue to bounce and if they come around to the speakers again, comb filtering can occur (constructive and destructive interference). That can occur at any frequency, but in the mids on up, it adds harshness. Try adding some absorption and see if it improves.

 

[highfigh]

That's just the thing. I can wish I had Sigs all I want - I know I'll never have them (if I should win a lottery, that would change of course). So, I keep my desirables in the realm of the possible. It's something I can work towards with at least some hope of reaching the goal. I could afford them now - I just have to deal with a low-ish WAF. Typical response to any suggested upgrade: "If you have something that "works" now, why do you need to replace it?" Sigh....

I'd bet that most of her shoes still "work"- why can't you replace or add to your collection?

I have a cousin who's often referred to as 'Imelda' at family gatherings because of her shoes.

 

[Swerd]

Would you consider the FR of the speaker in question (Studio-100) to be poor?

For me to tell, I really want to both see a FR curve and hear the speakers. After seeing the FR without hearing the Studio 100s, I wondered about their sound quality because they seemed to be boosted at the low and high end, and lower but very uneven in middle, and because that resembled some of what TLS Guy said he heard in them. Some of his criticisms were things that you can't tell by looking at a FR curve. The quality of the bass sound was one of those. The bass looked alright in the FR curve, but he said the 7" woofers were tuned lower than they were capable of doing, at about 20 Hz, and as a result, the bass sound quality was muddy. Remember, a FR curve only tells you about balance across the audio range. It measures relative loudness, not sound quality.

...Or, is it good enough that with room correction, they're perfectly acceptable within that price/quality category? I know a lot of people in this forum love them just as they are, but there are a select few who think they stink.

It's worth explaining a little of what goes on when a speaker's FR is measured, and why that has little to do with room response. To measure a speaker's FR:

• Set one speaker on a box or stand to get it up off of the floor (as high as possible without getting near the ceiling) and away from any walls. I don't listen like that, and I guess few do .
  
• Place the microphone 1 meter away and as high as the tweeter is. (Most people listen farther away, about 2.5 to 3 meters away.)
  
• Adjust the computer software's time window to about a 4 millisecond (ms) total "listening time window". The test signal, a short pulse of pink noise, will take about 2.75 ms to first arrive at the microphone, so have the software start recording sound just before that (about 2.7 ms), then cut it off at 6.7 ms. So the sampling window, a total of 4 ms, includes the primary sound from the speakers and not noise before that or room reflections that arrive later.
  
• Set the software's audio range to measure from 200 Hz and up. At one meter you are too close to accurately measure below that anyway. This called a "nearfield" measurement.
  
• The NRC of Canada does have a large (and expensive) anechoic room that allows them to accurately measure below 200 Hz. A poor man's substitute is to measure outdoors far away from other reflecting boundaries (such as a parking lot). Either way, the idea is to remove the room from the equation and make the signal time as long as possible to accurately measure the sound of the speakers without measuring a room's contribution.

So, to sum all this up, the FR curves we've been talking about in this thread should be heard by any listener, in most any typical room. If a speaker has a poor nearfield FR response curve, room corrections will not fix it.

 

[fredk]

For a medium priced speaker there is no question that they sound pretty darn good, better then most speakers I have heard in that price range for sure, but I wanted more

And thats the whole point. If thats all the money you have to spend, then they are a good speaker.

If there are other speakers out there that measure better, such as the one TLS Guy posted, they are also worth a listen.

GO-NAD! The drivers, the crossover bits (and how they are put together) and the cabinet will al contribute to the measured response. The measurements tell you about how good all the bits are when they are put together as a system. The hard part is figuring out what all those squiggles and lines mean.

 

[fredk]

The bass looked alright in the FR curve, but he said the 7" woofers were tuned lower than they were capable of doing, at about 20 Hz, and as a result, the bass sound quality was muddy.

From what I understand, that comes from the belief that tuning the system below the drivers fs results in large amounts of distortion no matter what driver it is. There are other equally competent builders/designers who disagree and there is some empirical evidence, at least in the subwoofer field to support this.

I have found some really interesting threads on other topics where designers like Tom Danley, Earl Geddies and other very competent designers disagree on some pretty fundamental things. Speaker design, even how the known physics is applies, is not nearly as cut and dried as you would think.

I agree that the measurements should be used as a guide, but in the end, you need to listen to the speaker to decide for yourself.

 

[Swerd]

From what I understand, that comes from the belief that tuning the system below the drivers fs results in large amounts of distortion no matter what driver it is. There are other equally competent builders/designers who disagree and there is some empirical evidence, at least in the subwoofer field to support this.

I have found some really interesting threads on other topics where designers like Tom Danley, Earl Geddies and other very competent designers disagree on some pretty fundamental things. Speaker design, even how the known physics is applies, is not nearly as cut and dried as you would think.

I agree that the measurements should be used as a guide, but in the end, you need to listen to the speaker to decide for yourself.

There are some woofers that can work well in bass reflex cabinets tuned lower than their fs, and others that cannot. I'm not aware of any T/S parameters that clearly indicate this. Are there any?

I guess it's dangerous to paint with too broad a brush and make generalizations about this.

 

[jostenmeat]

You had me scratching my head until I realized my typo. He could not hear below 150Hz. Too many ones.

Well, that is three octaves better, but that's still a high cutoff, heh. That freq is still lower than the open 4th string on a guitar. He would only hear about half of what I say, lol. Well, maybe that's not a bad thing.

Another one of the things I remembered about well liked speakers is that they had an off axis response that was reasonably close to on axis. The thinking was that the reflected sound that did make it to the listener from the first reflection points was good enough to add positively to the whole experience.

I read that it was Toole who mentioned this. That by leaving the sidewalls untreated, with superb offaxis response, the perceived stereo width could be wider. However, I've been led to believe that with a mch setup, depending on sidewalls for perceived width is unnecessary. I have to admit that I've been led down many roads though.

Otherwise, having good offaxis response makes it better not only for multiple listeners, but even for a single listener who has a specific toe-in angle that might be desired for width, imaging, and so forth.

[*]Set the software's audio range to measure from 200 Hz and up. At one meter you are too close to accurately measure below that anyway. This called a "nearfield" measurement.

[*]The NRC of Canada does have a large (and expensive) anechoic room that allows them to accurately measure below 200 Hz. A poor man's substitute is to measure outdoors far away from other reflecting boundaries (such as a parking lot). Either way, the idea is to remove the room from the equation and make the signal time as long as possible to accurately measure the sound of the speakers without measuring a room's contribution.
[/LIST]
So, to sum all this up, the FR curves we've been talking about in this thread should be heard by any listener, in most any typical room. If a speaker has a poor nearfield FR response curve, room corrections will not fix it.

Thanks so much for your insight throughout this thread. I have a couple of quick questions. Did the 1 meter distance become a standard, because anechoic rooms are so expensive, and therefore a standard could be adopted even with small anechoic rooms? For if the NRC has a large room as you say, they could take measurements from further distances?

May I ask what the implications are to the FR at further distances in such a room? I assume that HF energy is reduced more so than the LF, and so that must be interpreted. But at least one has the LF to compare to, since 200hz is still higher than ideal, obviously.

 

[Swerd]

... Did the 1 meter distance become a standard, because anechoic rooms are so expensive, and therefore a standard could be adopted even with small anechoic rooms? For if the NRC has a large room as you say, they could take measurements from further distances?

That seems like a good reason to me, but in truth, I don't have a clue. I guess standard methods, like 1 meter distance, were chosen so people can compare measured SPL levels of different speakers no matter who made the measurements.

May I ask what the implications are to the FR at further distances in such a room? I assume that HF energy is reduced more so than the LF, and so that must be interpreted. But at least one has the LF to compare to, since 200hz is still higher than ideal, obviously.

Let's imagine a 2-way speaker. If you keep the microphone or your ears at the same height as the tweeter, the angle relative to the woofer changes as you move away. This won't matter except at frequencies within an octave of the crossover point, when both the woofer and tweeter contribute to the sound. Depending on how far on- or off-axis you are with the woofer, the woofer and tweeter can add their sounds together, or cancel each other out at the angles where their sounds are out of phase with each other. This is what causes vertical lobing in speakers. When a speaker designer works out the crossover, he has to decide what listening distance to use. Of course, this gets more complicated with a 3-way.

On rereading that, it seems like I could explain that better if I knew how. Maybe later.

 

[jostenmeat]

Well, that is three octaves better, but that's still a high cutoff, heh. That freq is still lower than the open 4th string on a guitar.

The bold-faced word should instead have been "higher", sorry.

T
Let's imagine a 2-way speaker. If you keep the microphone or your ears at the same height as the tweeter, the angle relative to the woofer changes as you move away. This won't matter except at frequencies within an octave of the crossover point, when both the woofer and tweeter contribute to the sound. Depending on how far on- or off-axis you are with the woofer, the woofer and tweeter can add their sounds together, or cancel each other out at the angles where their sounds are out of phase with each other. This is what causes vertical lobing in speakers. When a speaker designer works out the crossover, he has to decide what listening distance to use. Of course, this gets more complicated with a 3-way.

Ok, makes sense. Wouldn't it then be arguable that greater distance is in fact better to reduce lobing's severity in the measurements? Like I'm sure it's been mentioned already, who sits only 1 meter away? Ok, some people have their monitors close by, and of course those are often used in the near-field. Maybe we need to adopt a couple/few distance measurement standards.

 

[fredk]

Well, that is three octaves better, but that's still a high cutoff, heh. That freq is still lower than the open 4th string on a guitar. He would only hear about half of what I say, lol. Well, maybe that's not a bad thing.

In fact, that was a big issue. At any large gathering, he could not hear what people were saying at all.

 

[fredk]

There are some woofers that can work well in bass reflex cabinets tuned lower than their fs, and others that cannot. I'm not aware of any T/S parameters that clearly indicate this. Are there any?

I guess it's dangerous to paint with too broad a brush and make generalizations about this.

Not that I know of. From what I understand, the to biggest sources of non linear distortion are from the motor (non linear travel) and the suspension and neither of these are impacted by or have an impact on fs. I'm on thin ice here though.

 

[Sheep]

Nope. Water absorbs different wavelengths at different rates resulting in blue shift. At 90' the effect is quite noticable real time.

You were using a digital camera correct? What exactly do you think happens when you use a white balance preset? It COMPENSATES, for that. Most camera's don't have underwater presets, but to think the real colors are lost, is wrong.

SheepStar

 

[TLS Guy]

There are some woofers that can work well in bass reflex cabinets tuned lower than their fs, and others that cannot. I'm not aware of any T/S parameters that clearly indicate this. Are there any?

I guess it's dangerous to paint with too broad a brush and make generalizations about this.

Yes, if Qts is around four. However no driver will tune very far below Fs. If you do you loose efficiency and spl, and the driver is progressively misaligned. Extended bass alignments have to be used sparingly and with great discretion, and are usually a bad plan.

Now that Paradigm speaker had the impedance null at 20 Hz, and I'm absolutely certain those small drivers had an Fs well north of 20 Hz. I can be certain that speaker is badly miss tuned and sounded it. The Qtc had to be well over one. Sure there was a lot of bass, but of poor quality. This sort of technique is designed to impress the unwary.

 

[TLS Guy]

The bold-faced word should instead have been "higher", sorry.



Ok, makes sense. Wouldn't it then be arguable that greater distance is in fact better to reduce lobing's severity in the measurements? Like I'm sure it's been mentioned already, who sits only 1 meter away? Ok, some people have their monitors close by, and of course those are often used in the near-field. Maybe we need to adopt a couple/few distance measurement standards.

Distance does not really reduce the effect of lobing. Odd order filter produce a lopsided lobing pattern with 15 degrees of tilt. This results in a smaller sweet spot area than the lobing pattern of even order filters. The crossover order however is dictated largely by the crossover point and the acoustic driver slopes. Then you have to take advantage of the lobing pattern you get.

In MTM an odd order filter is advantageous as the upper driver tilts 15 degrees down and the lower 15 degrees up. This serves to limit the vertical response axis and minimize floor and ceiling reflections.

The tilt of the first order filters is the reason Jim Thiel's speaker panels slopped backwards. Otherwise the tilt would have been to the floor.

 

[jostenmeat]

Distance does not really reduce the effect of lobing. Odd order filter produce a lopsided lobing pattern with 15 degrees of tilt. This results in a smaller sweet spot area than the lobing pattern of even order filters. The crossover order however is dictated largely by the crossover point and the acoustic driver slopes. Then you have to take advantage of the lobing pattern you get.

Perhaps I should not have said distance, specifically. The differing angles between tweeter and woofer would be reduced when the mic is moved away, perpendicularly from the speaker's baffle. I suppose there is still plenty of measurable lobing, but from the little I know of lobing, the more similar the "relative distances" to the drivers, the better. I do still admit that I fear I'm not getting the full gist of what you're trying to teach me.

In MTM an odd order filter is advantageous as the upper driver tilts 15 degrees down and the lower 15 degrees up. This serves to limit the vertical response axis and minimize floor and ceiling reflections.

I've read that before, but did not read about the tilt as the explanation. Thanks much.

The tilt of the first order filters is the reason Jim Thiel's speaker panels slopped backwards. Otherwise the tilt would have been to the floor.

I remember this from when I picked your brain on 1st order, and Thiel in particular. Heck, while I'm at it . . . can you describe in layman's terms why a higher order xover works better for off-axis response? I'm sure the reason is probably "hidden" right in your post, but I have to ask.

 

[TLS Guy]

Perhaps I should not have said distance, specifically. The differing angles between tweeter and woofer would be reduced when the mic is moved away, perpendicularly from the speaker's baffle. I suppose there is still plenty of measurable lobing, but from the little I know of lobing, the more similar the "relative distances" to the drivers, the better. I do still admit that I fear I'm not getting the full gist of what you're trying to teach me.



I've read that before, but did not read about the tilt as the explanation. Thanks much.



I remember this from when I picked your brain on 1st order, and Thiel in particular. Heck, while I'm at it . . . can you describe in layman's terms why a higher order xover works better for off-axis response? I'm sure the reason is probably "hidden" right in your post, but I have to ask.

It all boils down to driver overlap, which is the nightmare of first order filters. Drivers spaced a wave length at a given frequency will reinforce, and at a half wave length will cancel. That also goes for even and odd multiples. Therefore you have quite a witches brew.

You have to try as best you can to meld the on and off axis responses of all the drivers for minimal comb filtering. Of course you never can. However I found the little used series first order was useful, as the cut off is 9db per octave, still with good transient response. Actually trying to make a good speaker using first order slopes gets you a good start on the road to insanity.

The problem with higher order filters, is time and phase shift. So in a fourth order three way, at crossover the mid is a whole cycle behind the tweeter, and the woofer a whole cycle behind the mid. Some have staggered the drivers and it time aligns them, but the the cabinet architecture inevitable gets in the way.

The end result of fourth order filters is to reduce square waves to sine waves. In other words a severely degraded transient response.

Now some will say it does not matter, but I believe it does, and the problem is usually hidden in other sins.

For these reasons, as technology develops and becomes practical and affordable, active speakers with digital crossovers with zero phase and time shift are an inevitable progression in my view. The greatest improvements in sound quality will come from speaker research. The speaker is a very crude device compared to the rest of the chain. Any amp or receiver manufacturer with frequency response and distortion specs of even the finest speakers around, would not be able to sell a single unit.