For me, it's about finding out why I've liked it and trusted it for the past decade or so. A bit of a personal crusade, I'm a bit wary of hype without substance so reducing the speakers to their bare minimum is helpful for me. I can't speak about others.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Avantone Pro MixCube Monitor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Perhaps but the road noise masks some of the low end, right? I think it's also likely that, being off axis, a lot of the highest frequencies miss your ears. The point being that, though the stock stereo of today's vehicles may outperform those of bygone eras, what ultimately makes it into our brains during a ride might not differ as much.
Kindly elaborate please!
If you knew the crap that I currently have on my car ... you know a car radio integrated to the on-board computer with touch buttons or you can absolutely not change anything! In short, it is a daily punishment ... no need for training to discriminate the distortion here
I miss the pioneer and alpine of 30 years ago!
Last edited:
That comment's a bit off the wall.Well, Quincy Jones espoused them. He was MJ's producer, wasn't he?
Seems to follow logically that they'd be SUPER BAD indeed.
View attachment 271078
Last edited:
I'm definitely leaving you be now, not gonna continue the discussion with you, I've voiced my opinions in a logical way without much room for misinterpretation, yet you continue harp back to what you're going on there in the start of your second paragraph (continual misrepresentation of the points I've been making), I don't think you're really discoursing in particularly good faith and besides I've voiced all my opinions on the topic anyway. About your third paragraph, I think you're getting hung up on stuff that isn't important, the frequency response spinorama is the most important aspect. But anyway, thanks for sending the speaker in to Amir to be measured, which is commendable.
Last edited:
You always wanna be startin somethin
KSTR
Major Contributor
Low frequency group delay (alias phase response) of any wide-range driver is only a function of its frequency magnitude response, just like with any other minimum-phase system.
dasdoing
Major Contributor
guess it's Human Nature. He wont Stop Till he Gets Enough
KSTR
Major Contributor
"Good transient response" is generally there, technically, when you have
a) minimum phase response, no extra phase distortion from the typical multi-way crossovers
b) lack of severely ringing resonances, in other words: rather smooth frequency response
How come you get to 'voice' your opinions but when I do it, it's 'harping', 'spouting', and 'getting hung up on stuff'?
I'm definitely arguing in good faith but maybe I'm not making myself clear. Let me try it with bullet points:
- 1.
I am bornI get into audio and start at zero consequently accepting almost everything without much frame of reference. - 2. I discover Spinorama and think it's the last word on loudspeakers
- 3. Regrettably, I post on gearspace requesting a spin of the SCM25A pro and subsequently get dog piled by feisty fans who say, practically in unison, things like, "I can't mix on flat loudspeakers like the KH 310, the SCM25A is the standard, who the **** are you? What do measurements have to do with whether a speaker works in a pro environment," et cetera, ad nauseam...
- 4. Meanwhile, my Mixcube is in the Pacific Northwest awaiting its spin.
- 5. We receive the shocking news that this speaker looks objectively broken. Interestingly, the review mentions that several aspects of the usual data do not apply nearfield.
- 6. The data and Amir's opinion conflict with my experience that this is a useful speaker and I say so
- 7. It becomes obvious that 'translation' quality of a loudspeaker is undefined
- 8. We discuss as to how to define it
- 9. You disagree that this speaker is literally worth anything more than actual, stinking refuse and vehemently reject it in the absolute sense with the prejudice of a thousand Supreme Court Justices
- 10. I try to explain the course of events with bullet points (but then realize that an ordered list would've been more appropriate and now my list looks like rump)
You demand that I don't repeat myself so I will not. Please reread what I've said if you wish to understand. Logic is no alien in my cognitive universe. With utmost certainty, I have made pristinely clear that I think this speaker has merit for its intended purpose and I simply wish to know what that is in objective terms.
Thank you for almost commending me, the whiff of commendation almost made me feel honored.
Last edited:
Then I guess whatever punchy transients I heard, whether imagined or real, must've come from the lack of crossover since this speaker resonates like xylophone. Does group delay have nothing to do with it or step response? I guess I'm having a hard time accepting that the crossover is the whole issue. Again, I'll have to do my best to make a fair comparison to my Yamaha HS50 to see if this speaker sounds to me as sharp as I remember.
KSTR
Major Contributor
A loudspeaker, when seen as a linear (or only weakly distorting) system, is fully described by its impulse response (IR) which can be measured in a variety of ways.
Once you have the IR data, you can display it in many different ways:
- As is (impulse response), almost useless though
- Step Response (which is the integral of the IR)
- Frequency Response of magnitude and phase the ususal Bode plot form, or any other form for that matter (Nyquist plot)
- Waterfall / Burst Decay (a number of short-term "windowed" magnitude frequency responses layered up)
Once you have the IR data, you can display it in many different ways:
- As is (impulse response), almost useless though
- Step Response (which is the integral of the IR)
- Frequency Response of magnitude and phase the ususal Bode plot form, or any other form for that matter (Nyquist plot)
- Waterfall / Burst Decay (a number of short-term "windowed" magnitude frequency responses layered up)
Last edited:
Thank you. Does that mean that the lower a loudspeaker plays in terms of frequency that the longer the group delay is? I'm hearing, "group delay...is a function frequency ... response." Is that true? Then what's all this talk about a sealed cabinet having less group delay? I'm really ignorant on this specific topic but my current understanding is that ported designs can contribute to greater delay of the bass region. Is that simply just because they extend the bass region to be lower in frequency?
I have a pair of original Auratones from the 1970's and still use them always in mixdown and reference mix comparisons (though that's rarely, nowadays). I had to re-foam them a few years ago, the original Auratones like mine had a roll surround and did not exhibit so much of the nasty upper mid/low hf of these Avantones -- speakers which I would avoid.
I have not read every post, but I suspect there's a bit of mis-understanding going on about this class of monitors. I'm confident they were originally introduced to replace the grot-box, but mixers rapidly grasped that they forced concentration on the essential mid-frequencies of the mix, and encouraged precise balancing in that area, oddly, including ensuring that bass and bass drum balance is adequate on band-limited playback systems, Once that is all alright, then you turn them off and use better monitors to deal with the ends of the spectrum (while still checking on them).
As to why use them instead of, say, bandpass filters or some form of emulation, well people get used to what material sounds like and should sound like on their equipment, plus you could stick'em in a bag and take them to another studio with ease. They also have startlingly good imaging and no port!
Myself, I prefer my originals to any of the reissued Auratones, and did not like any of the substitutes offered by other manufacturers.
There’s contemporary frequency responses of a re-issue of the original Auratones (brighter with a peak) at:
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/I...DX/80s/Studio-Sound-1984-10-OCR-Page-0098.pdf
Also comparative reviews of the originals, more recent reissues and Avantones at:
https://en.audiofanzine.com/passive...ube-2014/editorial/reviews/mystical-aura.html
Do note the 1/6th 8ve smoothing.
Behringer also did a soundcube and I recall a couple of others, none of which ever tempted me. There's a review of those explaining why they are not utterly awful, and Auratones are useful, at:
www.soundonsound.com
In any case, improvements to overall frequency response are not the point here, the restrictions on it are what is important, much as with the truly awful (but very useful) Yamaha NS-10s, which replaced many of these. If you want good balanced monitors, Auratones are not they! And these, even less so.
I have not read every post, but I suspect there's a bit of mis-understanding going on about this class of monitors. I'm confident they were originally introduced to replace the grot-box, but mixers rapidly grasped that they forced concentration on the essential mid-frequencies of the mix, and encouraged precise balancing in that area, oddly, including ensuring that bass and bass drum balance is adequate on band-limited playback systems, Once that is all alright, then you turn them off and use better monitors to deal with the ends of the spectrum (while still checking on them).
As to why use them instead of, say, bandpass filters or some form of emulation, well people get used to what material sounds like and should sound like on their equipment, plus you could stick'em in a bag and take them to another studio with ease. They also have startlingly good imaging and no port!
Myself, I prefer my originals to any of the reissued Auratones, and did not like any of the substitutes offered by other manufacturers.
There’s contemporary frequency responses of a re-issue of the original Auratones (brighter with a peak) at:
https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/I...DX/80s/Studio-Sound-1984-10-OCR-Page-0098.pdf
Also comparative reviews of the originals, more recent reissues and Avantones at:
https://en.audiofanzine.com/passive...ube-2014/editorial/reviews/mystical-aura.html
Do note the 1/6th 8ve smoothing.
Behringer also did a soundcube and I recall a couple of others, none of which ever tempted me. There's a review of those explaining why they are not utterly awful, and Auratones are useful, at:
Behringer C5A & C50A
Behringer’s take on the classic Auratones won’t break the bank — but will they help you make those crucial mix-balancing decisions?
In any case, improvements to overall frequency response are not the point here, the restrictions on it are what is important, much as with the truly awful (but very useful) Yamaha NS-10s, which replaced many of these. If you want good balanced monitors, Auratones are not they! And these, even less so.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the transformations you can make with minimum phase. You said this:
So crossovers, in addition to amplitude ringing, both affect the impulse response, right? I know that filters shift phase, is that true also for the acoustic filter of the loudspeaker cabinet? And if so, is that phase shift similarly 'smearing transients' in the same way amplitude resonances and phase distortion from crossovers are?
Bottom line: ringing ruins transients - established from you and Toole. What I'm not clear about is the 'crossover phase distortion' and effect of sealed-vs-ported cabinets on transient response. Until now, I just thought it was solely the amplitude ringing and suspected that sealed cabinets somehow had better transient response.
Zensō
Major Contributor
I never said that. And this speaker can’t do anything even remotely close to what can be done with software. I can guarantee that software is far, far more useful than this speaker could ever be for checking mixes.
bennybbbx
Addicted to Fun and Learning
yes group delay is most important for good transients. for me on speaker it sound always as the kickdrum beater hit come more before the boom of the kick. it seem brain can correct frequency errors better as phase errors, because when see headphone FR it is is not very linear . see a new ? headphone for 210$ of the famous beyerdynamic factory it is in production and it is very high ratet many people like it
Beyerdynamic DT150 Review (Closed Back Headphone)
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Beyerdyanamic DT150 (250 ohm) closed back headphone. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $210. I am sure one of the forum historians will tell us but I think this is a 20+ year old design and it shows it. The plastic feel of the...
www.audiosciencereview.com
i try now find more txt files that can import in rew and see group delay, maybe subwoofers are better in group delay. need to check . erin test subwoofers
EDIT: erin offer no txt file but he show group delay and on this can see at least this large subwoofer have good low group delay https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/subwoofer_testing/monolith_13_thx_ultra/
Last edited:
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,943
- Likes
- 3,535
Group delay is directly related to frequency response and phase. A sealed speaker is a 2nd order system (12dB/octave amplitude rolloff) and a ported speaker a 4th order (24dB/octave amplitude rollof). As such a sealed speaker has a lower phase shift and lower group delay. If you high pass a loudspeaker you introduce additional phase shift and group delay.
People are not very sensitive to group delay. The academic consensus is that group delay doesn't matter in practice, as the acoustics of a room introduce a lot of group delay by itself. It might be of more importance when listening near field, in an acoustically treated room. However, sensitivity to group delay is mainly relevant for low frequencies. The ones the Avantones don't reproduce ... We already have threads dedicated to this topic, like https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/importance-of-impulse-response.38960/
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,679
- Likes
- 37,383
Seems a coaxial LS50 would be better. And so now we value a pinpoint image of a broken design crossoverless speaker to simulate lo-fi? Why, because tabletop radios, TVs, and car stereos in their common use are by those who care about images? Strange thinking here. It was for this reason I mentioned LS 3/5a speakers and LS50s. They image very well if that is what you're looking for even if I think the idea is misguided.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
