Emotiva Airmotiv B1+ Review (Bookshelf Speaker)

[Francis Vaughan]

Years ago I bought a tiny little USB adc/dac to use with a headset. It cost $30. On their web page there was a specifications listing, and under performance they listed the device's performance as “$30”. The point being that at this price point you can only expect so much.
These speakers are miraculously cheap. Not that long ago you would be pleased if something worked at all for equivalent money. You can spend more on a nice meal for two.
Bass response is a simple problem. You can’t fight physics. Swept volume, sound level, bass extension. Choose which one to compromise on. If you don’t need to go loud you can go low and small. It is just a matter of choosing your design point.
Mind you, personally I would not consider a ported two way as a good pairing with a subwoofer. But the market seems to dictate that the most popular sellers will be those that provide flexibility in deployment. So speakers are desired by consumers that can be used in multiple roles. Maybe a sub is next year’s toy. Or this year’s home theatre speakers are next year’s desk system. So you get compromises. But again, for the money, what do you expect?

 

[Rick Sykora]

I think it’s natural that discussion moves on to flaws after everyone has said their initial “wow really nice speaker for the money! Thanks for the review”. In a forum like this, it doesn’t surprise me that it gravitates towards “what technically could have been done better?”, even for speakers where most things were done well.

To me, the port resonance is a very minor flaw for a speaker in this price range, and I’ll definitely be recommending this to friends (along with others). I got into the port resonance discussion just to wonder if it might not be an issue at all for those of us running separate subs.

Without hearing them, I agree. Also agree that the ASR review threads gravitate towards "how to fix the flaw(s)". This is the nature of many problem solvers/engineers. The problem with this in a review thread is the perception of the layperson who may very likely pass up a good speaker because the thread obsessed over a flaw and go buy something worse because another (ASR or other) review did not scrutinize.

 

[Jim85IROC]

these speakers look great aside from that port resonance issue that's impacting the area around 1.1-1.2khz. I wonder how low these will play with the port plugged? If they can still properly integrate with a sub at 80hz, these would be a great budget speaker with the port plugged.

I really wish more manufacturers would design their small bookshelf speakers with sealed configurations instead of trying to get every last drop of bass out of these tiny designs.

 

[richard12511]

Would you recommend these speakers to friends, without listening to them yourself, first?

Yes. I trust the measurements. Plus Amir liked them, and we know he's not afraid to say when he doesn't. I also own the T2+.

 

[sarumbear]

The reason I didn't mention spl weighting, or specific distances, or cubic volume, etc. in my initial response to your question is because I don't care...

How silly of me to think that the members of the forum that is titled "Audio Science" would care about units.

my main system is a utopia , as it can do 10Hz at 115db+ at 4m.

That is quite a wizardly achievement!

Bye-bye, Harry Potter

 

[richard12511]

How silly of me to think that the members of the forum that is titled "Audio Science" would care about units.

Why would anyone care so deeply about what my personal definition of "full range" is in a thread about a $250/pair bookshelf speaker? What does that have to do with this thread?

That is quite a wizardly achievement!
Bye-bye, Harry Potter

You can have it too with with a few of these. 1 of them can 111dB at 1m with less than 10% distortion and no room gain.

You asked me what my definition of full range was. I thought about it for 2 seconds and gave you a simple answer, "Reference level at close to 20Hz at the MLP". Sorry for not providing cubic meters of the room and db weighting(although "reference" is clearly defined) . Truth be told, my definition for "full range" is kinda nebulous and changes based on the situation.

 

[sarumbear]

Why would anyone care so deeply about what my personal definition of "full range" is in a thread about a $250/pair bookshelf speaker? What does that have to do with this thread?

One final time; I was commenting about your throwing around numbers with no units and clarifications attached to them. Even your last post included this meaningless bit "1 of them can 111dB at 1m with less than 10% distortion and no room gain." At what frequency?

Even a home cook will not describe a cake recipe as mix 550 flour with 200 butter and bake for 10 at 200. However, that is exactly what you are doing. On a science based forum it is annoying if not infuriating!

We are now off-topic, hence I will not reply to you on this thread anymore.

 

[richard12511]

Even your last post included this meaningless bit "1 of them can 111dB at 1m with less than 10% distortion and no room gain." At what frequency?
.

Just for clarification, that was in reference to the post you quoted(ie 10Hz), but I can kinda agree that I should have made that more clear.

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Once again this demonstrates the need for smaller speakers optimized exclusively for use with subwoofers. Compromising overall performance by trying to squeeze out a few more Hz of bass performance for acceptable use without a subwoofer seems to be the root of this issue that continues to show up in most smaller speaker reviews. It's an issue that THX tried to address by specifying sealed satellite speakers rated to -3 dB @ 80 Hz to properly interface with the 80 Hz subwoofer crossover slope available on most AVRs:

THX satellite speakers are sealed systems with an 80 Hz –3 dB low frequency cutoff (preferably with a Qtc of 0.71). The electronic high-pass filter applied to them is an 80 Hz, 2nd order (12dB/octave) Butterworth alignment. The speaker and the filter sum to a 4th order Linkwitz/Riley roll-off which matches the electronic filter applied to the subwoofer

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_1/feature-article-thx-1-2006-part-3.html

 

[sarumbear]

Have you seen any amplification solution that caters to the THX specification you quoted on the market that works in a stereo only music listening/making/recording studio or computer station?

Please don’t say use an AVR. They are specialised equipment for multi-channel audio.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Please elaborate how you can determine by the measurements that the port resonance is a major impact. Since this is a science forum, one should be able to look at the measurements, find the root cause and apply remediation. In this case, how does the audio scientist know the identify the problem and know when his solution was sufficient?

A while back, the forum chased a “resonance” In the Buchhardt S400 and later boiled it down to a (likely inaudible) directivity error. This was before Amir was doing nearfield measurements. While I can respect your listening experience, should be able to look at the measurements without listening and justify why the port resonance was worth fixing.

This is a comparable standard that happens all the time in a workplace setting. Whether Pioneer or Emotiva or JBL, if someone found a comparable port resonance issue, when does management say it is bad enough to justify a redesign? IME, it would not be sufficient that one experienced listener claimed it was audible. You would need measurements and some other proof that most people would find the sound objectionable. As @amirm pointed out, port resonances are fairly common. I doubt that every manufacturer was ignorant of their product’s port resonance, so this tells me a judgement call was made to ship with it anyway.

When would a reputable manufacturer, make the call to address a port resonance?

I'm not really following this. I didn't base my conclusion that the port was causing the peaked response at 1K on subjective listening tests. I was looking at the nearfield plot of the woofer, which showed no peaking in that area, and inferring that we were observing the port resonance in the combined frequency response measurements. Maybe there's a flaw in that logic, but it has nothing to do with subjective opinions. What was subjective was my decision to try to even out the response. I thought the B1 lacked clarity in the upper midrange, and I thought the crossover redo fixed that.

 

[BDWoody]

Let's try to keep the review threads more on topic please.
Lots of room for new threads...
Thanks.

 

[Rick Sykora]

I'm not really following this. I didn't base my conclusion that the port was causing the peaked response at 1K on subjective listening tests. I was looking at the nearfield plot of the woofer, which showed no peaking in that area, and inferring that we were observing the port resonance in the combined frequency response measurements. Maybe there's a flaw in that logic, but it has nothing to do with subjective opinions. What was subjective was my decision to try to even out the response. I thought the B1 lacked clarity in the upper midrange, and I thought the crossover redo fixed that.

Thanks for clarifying, but may be I am missing something...

Here is another nearfield that is similar, but supposedly better. While I see there is lower output from the port, there is still a resonance and the woofer response curve looks very comparable to the Emotiva’s...

I could pull more nearfields from Amir’s reviews and I struggle with how the woofer response is affected when the port resonance is higher in level. As I stated, not sure how he takes these measures, but gathering they are all at same distance being driven by same signal level.

If you can explain how the woofer response is significantly altered by the port resonance, am just trying to understand. Thanks!

 

[sarumbear]

If you can explain how the woofer response is significantly altered by the port resonance, am just trying to understand. Thanks!

The port is just another drive unit. Whatever it emits is added to the over-all response. If the resonance is at a lower level what is added to the overall response will be small to notice in the sum. On this speaker it is higher than one wants hence it affects the response.

You will hear a whisper in a quite room but not on a noisy room. The noise will mask the whisper.

 

[Rick Sykora]

The port is just another drive unit. Whatever it emits is added to the over-all response. If the resonance is at a lower level what is added to the overall response will be small to notice in the sum. On this speaker it is higher than one wants hence it affects the response.

Thanks for your response!

I get that the nearfields are supposed to sum. But without knowing how membrane effects and how rear port radiation factor in, seems quite a leap to imagine a complete summed response. If I use Amir’s on-axis farfield as a proxy for the summed responses, I see resonances around 1.2 kHz, but their shape hardly corresponds to the nearfield ones. According to Toole, a higher Q resonance is not as audible as a broader Q one...

As I have worked with the Purifi SPK5, the port resonance was pretty bad, so many suggested that the PR was a better answer. However, but my work (see Directiva thread), shows that what the PR did was mainly to broaden the resonance. Many on the forum have taken the position that vented design are bad because of uncontrolled port resonances. Am not so sure about the audiblity and so am seeking better objective definition.

 

[sarumbear]

I get that the nearfields are supposed to sum. But without knowing how membrane effects and how rear port radiation factor in, seems quite a leap to imagine a complete summed response.

The frequency of the resonance is around 1000Hz. Its wavelength is around 34cm, which is smaller than the baffle of this speaker, hence whether the port is at the back or at the front wouldn't matter much other than a small reduction due to the difference caused by the speaker depth. Every emitter is added equally to the sum.

...many suggested that the PR was a better answer. However, but my work (see Directiva thread), shows that what the PR did was mainly to broaden the resonance. Many on the forum have taken the position that vented design are bad because of uncontrolled port resonances. Am not so sure about the audiblity and so am seeking better objective definition.

What resonance you mean? A passive radiator will not have these resonances as there is no tube to form a Helmholtz resonator.

 

[CumSum]

As a proud owner of the powered Airmotiv 5S, I am not shocked at how well this speaker measured. They get extremely loud, sound super clean and image sound in a wonderful way. I ran them in my 5000+ cubic foot HT room with dual 18" subs and had no issues with bass integration. And for watching movies at stupidly loud levels, these things never lost steam. I also own Adam T5V's and the sound characteristics seem almost identical. Both speakers are much better than my JBL 306P's.

Many reviewers prefer the active version of this speaker to the passive one. And they are built differently, look at the port and phase plug as an example.

Since the port is of such contention I might just have to measure the port of one of my Airmotiv 5S's to see if it suffers from the same issues.

 

[Rick Sykora]

The frequency of the resonance is around 1000Hz. Its wavelength is around 34cm, which is smaller than the baffle of this speaker, hence whether the port is at the back or at the front wouldn't matter much other than a small reduction due to the difference caused by the speaker depth. Every emitter is added equally to the sum.

What resonance you mean? A passive radiator will not have these resonances as there is no tube to form a Helmholtz resonator.

Thanks again for your advice!

At this stage am veering off-topic, so part of this will take to another thread.

Why no adjustment for membrane effects? See discussion here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-spk5-purifi-review-speaker.20125/post-664368

 

[nathan]

Once again this demonstrates the need for smaller speakers optimized exclusively for use with subwoofers. Compromising overall performance by trying to squeeze out a few more Hz of bass performance for acceptable use without a subwoofer seems to be the root of this issue that continues to show up in most smaller speaker reviews. It's an issue that THX tried to address by specifying sealed satellite speakers rated to -3 dB @ 80 Hz to properly interface with the 80 Hz subwoofer crossover slope available on most AVRs:

THX satellite speakers are sealed systems with an 80 Hz –3 dB low frequency cutoff (preferably with a Qtc of 0.71). The electronic high-pass filter applied to them is an 80 Hz, 2nd order (12dB/octave) Butterworth alignment. The speaker and the filter sum to a 4th order Linkwitz/Riley roll-off which matches the electronic filter applied to the subwoofer

https://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_13_1/feature-article-thx-1-2006-part-3.html

Good point. And it's not just THX. It's Toole, Geddes, Olive, Devantier, Welti, etc etc that present science the supports this approach. It is super effective for two channel, and luckily there are a handful of devices that can manage the signal path well for very little money (eg, miniDSP).

In that context, this Emotiva speaker is the most "perfect" speaker at this price point (assuming one follows the physics of small room acoustics, understands and uses bass management, doesn't need higher SPL, etc.) reviewed to date on ASR?

Yes, if someone wasn't interested in multi-sub setups, and wanted a bit more bass, the JBL in the same price category might be better (or might not depending on room modes, seating position, etc). But for an application with bass management, is this now the value leader?

 

[ROOSKIE]

Good point. And it's not just THX. It's Toole, Geddes, Olive, Devantier, Welti, etc etc that present science the supports this approach. It is super effective for two channel, and luckily there are a handful of devices that can manage the signal path well for very little money (eg, miniDSP).

In that context, this Emotiva speaker is the most "perfect" speaker at this price point (assuming one follows the physics of small room acoustics, understands and uses bass management, doesn't need higher SPL, etc.) reviewed to date on ASR?

Yes, if someone wasn't interested in multi-sub setups, and wanted a bit more bass, the JBL in the same price category might be better (or might not depending on room modes, seating position, etc). But for an application with bass management, is this now the value leader?

Depending on your view the A130 is as good or better than the B1+ above the bass region and does have a little more bass in terms of what I see in measurements here on ASR.
Both respond well to PEQ, at least on paper - generating essentially the same level of quality playback.
The "Harman score" slightly favors the JBL A130 both without and with a subwoofer. (JBL 5.1/7.4 Emotiva 4.7/7.1)
Both have very low distortion for the $ class.
The Emotiva is only $229, but not currently in stock. The JBL A130 is $299, often on sale for much less and refurbished versions are often only $150.
It would seem no clear case can be made for either speaker over the other as the JBL is slightly better in testing and is slightly more $ when full price.

I have the A130 and have never heard the B1+.

By no means do I recommend the A130 without bass reinforcement so if the B1+ has less then you need a sub even more so. The A130 needs help just to feel like a "fuller" book shelf, in other words it needs help below 55/60hrz or so. I am not a bass head, I do have musical tastes than include music with bass and the A130 does not provide enough extension. It also has low HD, but due to the small woofer starts to sound strained at fairly high volumes when not high passed. There is no replacement for displacement and the small box and 5" woofer can only do so much. At medium volumes it is very nice.
My JBL 530 easily has notably better extension and can play a hair louder before feeling stressed, although for high output it (like just about every 2 way monitor) must be high passed as the woofer is only a 5" (the tweeter can handle just about anything). At more common volumes it gets by very well without a sub. It is far superior to the A130 as a 2.0 candidate.
Personally while I like the A130, I would pick the 530 at full price ($599), over the A130 at full price ($299). On sale often for $280-300 the 530 is a fantastic deal.

I should note I have the Infinity R152 (often as low as $130 a pair) and also prefer that speaker to the A130. The R152 also need bass help. Additionally I prefer the Infinity R162 (often as low as $160 a pair) to the A130 & the R162 can sound pretty good as a 2.0.
The R152 has not been ASR tested, the R162 has and measured very well.

The ELAC debut B6.2 is another speaker I have owned in this range that measured well here and is often on sale for well under $300. I found that they sounded very nice.

The most obvious value for $ spent leader in my mind is going to a top budget active speaker. No purchase amp required. I mean a pair of JBL or Kali budget monitors is a very $ deal.

Consider the ELAC DBR-62 as well. $600 but very capable - easily worth the extra $$ (on paper at least.)

In any case the A130, in my view - which is based on having owned and currently owning many 2 way monitors, need bass reinforcement in most situations, so therefore the B1+ likely needs it even more and can not be a top budget 2.0 choice but rather one of the top budget 2.1 choices.

Ultimately I use a HP with all my monitors - they sit atop dual 8" woofers that turn them into a 3-way of sorts as they are crossed around 100-150hz depending on the speaker. This really cut the drama out of the monitors woofer excursion.
Right now my favorites among many are the JBL 530 and the Infinity R152. Very good fidelity and very low prices when on sale. If the B1+ is their equal then it is capable of some serious hifi on the cheap.
I am going to try a pair when they are back in stock.