Zumbo: A proposition for you

[zumbo]

I agree. But, unfortunately, mine were not.

* Impedance: 4 Ohms
* Frequency Response: 33Hz - 32kHz
* Sensitivity: (1 watt @ 3' ) 87dB

Which is why I feel they should be rated @90dB.

Correct?

Or at least considered to equal the dB of an 8ohm 90dB speaker @1w 1m.

 

[GranteedEV]

Yes, indeed 90db/2.83v/m would be their rated sensitivity. Above average sensitivity. average efficiency.

 

[zumbo]

Yes, indeed 90db/2.83v/m would be their rated sensitivity. Above average sensitivity. average efficiency.

Wish I had you in the past to help me convince folks that it is an improper spec when a manufacturer rates a 4ohm speakers sensitivity @1w 1m.

Sheeeeeeew. I need a beer.

 

[GranteedEV]

I can see the logic behind using w/m though

If a 90w entry levle receiver can only do 115w into 4 ohms, then the limit of that amp is decided by the max current capability, not its max voltage capability, when driving a nominal 4 ohm speaker.

It won't help you compare the sensitivity of two speakers / how loud it will get with the same amount of amplifier voltage,

But it will allow you to decide you need more "power" than you have. Power is a function of both voltage AND current. Since amps are not rated by their voltage and current delivery abilities, but instead by "power", you have to cater to the people buying your product. Not many people are going to be comfortable with specs if we said

"This amp can use 60v to push current through 32ohm loads, but only uses 20v into a 4 ohm load" <-- which btw, is the same amount of "power"!

They like the idea of "more power".

I believe in a 2.83v/1m sensitivity, and i don't believe in nominal impedance. An impedance and phase graph is way more useful in finding the right amp for the job.

 

[jostenmeat]

So does anyone know what the smoothing is for the graph(s) zumbo has presented? Who did the measurements (hopefully it's not supplied by the manufacturer, and is instead 3rd party)? Here is the same speaker being measured in both graphs below. The first as a *very* smoothed at 1/3 octave as offered by the mftr, and the second is by the most famous of testing facilities, the NRC, and I assume with zero smoothing. The first source also offers a sens of 86.5db/W/m, and the second offers 85.5db/2.83v/m. Anyways, when you compare the two below, you can understand why I'm curious what smoothing zumbo's graphs are using, and who was measuring them.

 

[zumbo]

So does anyone know what the smoothing is for the graph(s) zumbo has presented? Who did the measurements (hopefully it's not supplied by the manufacturer, and is instead 3rd party)? Here is the same speaker being measured in both graphs below. The first as a *very* smoothed at 1/3 octave as offered by the mftr, and the second is by the most famous of testing facilities, the NRC, and I assume with zero smoothing. The first source also offers a sens of 86.5db/W/m, and the second offers 85.5db/2.83v/m. Anyways, when you compare the two below, you can understand why I'm curious what smoothing zumbo's graphs are using, and who was measuring them.

These were measured by National Research Council of Canada.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/mbquart_vera_vs_1f/

The others were graphs provided by reviews, so I guess reading the review may give you that answer. I don't need the evidence, I own the product.

As stated, I don't buy or recommend speakers based on reviews.

I was asked to provide data, and I am doing the best I can.

If anyone wants do dismiss the graphs, it's fine by me. As stated, I don't use them.

 

[jostenmeat]

Very cool that NRC has hit em up too. Looks pretty good to me! Ah ok, I see what the going price were on these, so I suppose this flatter response does come at a price, eh.

 

[GranteedEV]

The others were graphs provided by reviews, so I guess reading the review may give you that answer. I don't need the evidence, I own the product.

And that's perfectly fine for stuff we can audition. THe only thing is that right now the MBs are essentially internet direct. So the more information we can gather the better. You don't need the evidence for yourself, but it definitely helps support your recommendations!

 

[zumbo]

Very cool that NRC has hit em up too. Looks pretty good to me! Ah ok, I see what the going price were on these, so I suppose this flatter response does come at a price, eh.

Well, as a matter of fact, that review states the speakers are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

QLS are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

Both are from the same company, but the $5000 pair is an '05 model, while my $1000 pair(not retail) are '00-'03 models.

Get the point?

 

[KEW]

So does anyone know what the smoothing is for the graph(s) zumbo has presented? Who did the measurements (hopefully it's not supplied by the manufacturer, and is instead 3rd party)? Here is the same speaker being measured in both graphs below. The first as a *very* smoothed at 1/3 octave as offered by the mftr, and the second is by the most famous of testing facilities, the NRC, and I assume with zero smoothing. The first source also offers a sens of 86.5db/W/m, and the second offers 85.5db/2.83v/m. Anyways, when you compare the two below, you can understand why I'm curious what smoothing zumbo's graphs are using, and who was measuring them.

Thanks, JM!
I have always wondered how much difference smoothing makes to a curve, and generally feel pretty insecure when I see a smoothed one like in your post. This is the first time I have seen smoothed and non-smoothed side by side.

I think the biggest offender is the way the y-axis is compressed in the Ascend graph. The distance between 80 and 90 dB is less than half that of the NRC graph which really makes it look like there is very little change in the SPL.

Interestingly, Ascend now criticizes smoothing and posted unsmoothed graph and expanded their y-axis scale to offer greater resolution than NRC! Here is unsmoothed vs smoothed and compressed as provided at different times by Ascend. I have to say the graph still looks a little smoothed vs. the NRC graph:

Does anyone have an idea why the bass on the NRC graph is only down about 15dB at 30Hz, while Ascend's own graph shows it down 30dB!

Sorry Zumbo, for getting so far OT!

 

[zumbo]

And that's perfectly fine for stuff we can audition. THe only thing is that right now the MBs are essentially internet direct. So the more information we can gather the better. You don't need the evidence for yourself, but it definitely helps support your recommendations!

Just making the point to jostenmeat, who just joined-in on the thread.

And, MBs are done. German Maestro is B&M.

 

[zumbo]

Sorry Zumbo, for getting so far OT!

That's perfectly fine. I would rather learn from this thread. Or, learn from any other thread.

As stated in the past, I could honestly care less if someone doesn't buy MB Quart QLS when I recommend them.

I am usually just offering the suggestion in good faith, as I will personally have 0 benefit. I am not a dealer. I don't work for the company, and I get nothing in return.

I am just a truck driver that loves audio.

But one day, someone will listen. And when the product arrives, they will be stunned.

Did I mention I got my last pair for $469.

 

[zumbo]

So, am I correct in reading the MB Quart outperformed the Ascends by the NRC?

 

[GranteedEV]

And, MBs are done. German Maestro is B&M.

Er... yeah. I think you know what I meant though.

So, am I correct in reading the MB Quart outperformed the Ascends by the NRC?

It certainly looks like the MB Quart in that review has nice frequency response and off-axis response. That irregular peak at the top of the top octave is a question mark but the only one. FInding a speaker response that sounds "right" in the top octave is one of the most subjective things out there from what I've noticed. I couldn't tell you what the ideal top octave response is.

 

[jostenmeat]

Well, as a matter of fact, that review states the speakers are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

QLS are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

Both are from the same company, but the $5000 pair is an '05 model, while my $1000 pair(not retail) are '00-'03 models.

Get the point?

No, I don't get the point. I got my last pair of 2.5 way PSB towers for less than you paid for your recent auction. I do not assume that they are a better value or are equal in performance to the PSB Imagine 2.5 way towers at $2,000 a pair that also uses treated polypropelene woofers and ferrofluid cooled metal tweeter.

Or was your point that MB has done a lot of cost cutting to be more competitive?

Thanks, JM!
Does anyone have an idea why the bass on the NRC graph is only down about 15dB at 30Hz, while Ascend's own graph shows it down 30dB!

Sorry Zumbo, for getting so far OT!

I believe you may be misreading the graph. -15db seems to still occur at 30hz, where the -30db point is below the 20hz mark.

edit: KEW, while the measuring equipment is surely different, and besides the true anechoic chamber vs "quasi anechoic", I wonder how much of the apparent improvement might be due to their recent crossover redesign. I believe sholling has done the upgrade, IIRC.

 

[jostenmeat]

So, am I correct in reading the MB Quart outperformed the Ascends by the NRC?

Yes, but it should at nearly 6x the cost.

 

[zumbo]

No, I don't get the point. I got my last pair of 2.5 way PSB towers for less than you paid for your recent auction. I do not assume that they are a better value or are equal in performance to the PSB Imagine 2.5 way towers at $2,000 a pair that also uses treated polypropelene woofers and ferrofluid cooled metal tweeter.

It was the large floor-standing models offered for their year indicated. Mine are just the prior year version. I don't think the driver technology could have made that much of an improvement in such a short period of time.

Or was your point that MB has done a lot of cost cutting to be more competitive?

Thread skimming?

The QLS(mine) are prior models to the Vera.

They are both discontinued MB Quart products.

The QLS are, and have been discontinued since '03. As the company changed hands, liquidations were done. Two companies(that I know of) in California purchased the remaining stock in America on hand at Fosgate Audionics.

Since I purchased mine, and found-out the quality, I have since been here recommending them when I find it appropriate.

 

[zumbo]

Current products by the fine folks who made my speakers are under the name GERMAN MAESTRO!

http://www.german-maestro.de/US/index.htm

Don't get me wrong, the participation in the thread is much appreciated, but all of this has been covered in the thread.

 

[zumbo]

As mentioned in this thread earlier, the new models are $4000 a pair.

While that price is less than the previous high-end Vera model($5000 pair), the special wood finishes have been dropped.

EDIT. Special wood finishes are available, but not at the 4k price. Add the special wood, and the price should be right back up to Vera.

http://www.german-maestro.de/US/ms_f_one.htm

 

[jostenmeat]

It was the large floor-standing models offered for their year indicated. Mine are just the prior year version. I don't think the driver technology could have made that much of an improvement in such a short period of time.



Thread skimming?

The QLS(mine) are prior models to the Vera.

They are both discontinued MB Quart products.

The QLS are, and have been discontinued since '03. As the company changed hands, liquidations were done. Two companies(that I know of) in California purchased the remaining stock in America on hand at Fosgate Audionics.

Since I purchased mine, and found-out the quality, I have since been here recommending them when I find it appropriate.

Again, what was your point? That you are somehow halfassedly comparing speakers based on . . . wut?

Oh, so your post was somehow inferring the changing of hands to Fosgate? Oh I'm sooooo sorry I missed THAT point . . .

Well, as a matter of fact, that review states the speakers are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

QLS are 6.5" mids, and 1" titanium dome tweeters in a 2.5 way tower.

Both are from the same company, but the $5000 pair is an '05 model, while my $1000 pair(not retail) are '00-'03 models.

Get the point?