Polk Reserve R200: Spinorama and measurements (a really nice surprise!)

[richard12511]

Very true, I would like to have separate horizontal and vertical directivity indexes, as many compensate flaws in one by the other but this in my experience doesn't sound as good as a loudspeaker were both are flawless.
By the way could you maybe also plot your above very interesting Aria, R200 and M106 horizontal and total comparisons all together in 2 plots?

This kinda gets back to your point you made about that super expensive speaker in the stereophile thread. I agree with you. Fixing errors in one plane/curve by introducing equal and opposite errors in another may look just as good in some lights, but I doubt it sounds as good a speaker with no errors in either.

 

[napilopez]

This kinda gets back to your point you made about that super expensive speaker in the stereophile thread. I agree with you. Fixing errors in one plane/curve by introducing equal and opposite errors in another may look just as good in some lights, but I doubt it sounds as good a speaker with no errors in either.

For sure. In some sense it's arguable a matter of balancing tonal balance with directivity too. As an exaggerated example that's nonetheless kind of what's going on with the R200, this...

would show a large directivity error, but would probably sound more balanced than...

which would show less of a directivity error but have a more obvious recession in the upper mids/lower treble. Hence my point earlier about how optimal speakers would have no directivity error, but give few speakers are optimal, you've gotta decide what compromises you want to make.

 

[beaRA]

Highly unlikely to be a TMM 2 way - there would be massive comb filtering from all woofers playing up into the high frequencies.

Right, this is why I'm interested in confirming the crossover configuration. Every listing I can find says the R500 are 2-way.

 

[beaRA]

In case anyone else was on the edge of their seat, Mike Greco from Polk confirms the R500, R600, and R350 are 2.5 way at about the 54 minute mark in the video below.

 

[Supalite SV]

Hi, Can we compare Polk R200 vs Elac's DFR62 ?

 

[AlexanderM]

If you notice any reviews of the R700 please post a link.

 

[napilopez]

Hi, Can we compare Polk R200 vs Elac's DFR62 ?

I assume you mean the DBR62?

Without anyone having heard both speakers together, and without both speakers being measured on the same system, it's hard to compare as they're both very good. They're close enough that the small differences are likely a matter of preference rather than one being clearly better than the other. As I usually say when speakers are this close, I'd go for whichever you think is prettiest.

That said, if I had to choose based on the data (it's impossible to remove my bias of having heard the polk and liked it alot though), I'd choose the R200. My data usually compares reasonably well to amir's with some flexibility in bass amount, and it appears the R200 is a bit more neutral and has a slightly wider soundstage. Although they are close enough that it's questionable how audible that extra neutrality is.

The DBR62 does seem to be tuned a touch warmer/darker overall though, while perhaps having a slightly more recessed midrange.

Now, I generally feel people here should be looking closer at directivity performance because there's a lot of information in that off-axis data. Looking at horizontal directivity and soundstage performance, I think both speakers are quite similar, the DBR 62 is slightly better in some respects and the polk is better in others. I'd guess the polk might sounds a littttttttlleee wider, based on more energy aroudn 4-6kHz, and maybe the ELAC would be a little more accurate in its imaging but we're really splitting hairs.

Elac DBR62 off-axis (smoothed to 1/12 octave for clarity):

Polk R200 off axis: (you can ignore below 200ish hz, directivity information there is notaccurate

By the way, this is another a good example of how a waveguide is not a magical solution to directivity problems. The elac is really barely better than the polk in terms of beaming behavior.

Now the normalized data for the DBR62:

Quite a bit of bunching due to the on-axis diffraction. How much this is an issue is hard to know. I really don't like the big 6dB step between 3kHz and 5kHz though. That's too low a frequency for a drop like that imo.

R200:

Also a lot of bunching around 5kHz because of the on-axis diffraction but a bit of a smoother step down after that. I'd consider both of these roughly in the same class.

Most people don't listen on-axis for home listening though(plus the R200 is too bright on-axis), so sometimes I like to normalize to an off-axis angle instead, say, 20 degrees.

DBR62 normalized to 20 degrees horizontal:

R200:

Again, really in the same class.

One more way of looking at the horizontal data is taking the averages that make up the early reflections curve. Here I've compared the listening window and predicted sidewall reflections (40-80 degrees). R200 in Blue, DBR62 in red.

Here you can more clearly see that both speakers have a similar amount of bunching/diffraction, but the R200 maintains that off-axis energy to higher frequencies, which will probably mean larger apparent sources/slightly wider sounder soundstage overall. You can also see the R200 beams more in its sidewall reflections, but the DBR62 does have a fair bit of it as well.

Looking at the total horizontal reflections, which includes rear and front wall reflections in addition to sidewalls, and the horizontal early reflections DI, the R200 balances out very nicely while the elac is very close but a little less smooth horizontal DI overall.

So there's my super nitty gritty take on directivity. Taking both the direct sound and off-axis into account, I think the R200 just edges out the Elac, but they are both quite good. The R200 also seems to have slightly more bass extension but it's too close for me to be comfortable making that call given the relative variability of DIY nearfield measurements compared to the NFS.

 

[beaRA]

I assume you mean the DBR62?

Without anyone having heard both speakers together, and without both speakers being measured on the same system, it's hard to compare as they're both very good. They're close enough that the small differences are likely a matter of preference rather than one being clearly better than the other. As I usually say when speakers are this close, I'd go for whichever you think is prettiest.

That said, if I had to choose based on the data (it's impossible to remove my bias of having heard the polk and liked it alot though), I'd choose the R200. My data usually compares reasonably well to amir's with some flexibility in bass amount, and it appears the R200 is a bit more neutral and has a slightly wider soundstage. Although they are close enough that it's questionable how audible that extra neutrality is.

View attachment 132945The DBR62 does seem to be tuned a touch warmer/darker overall though, while perhaps having a slightly more recessed midrange.

Now, I generally feel people here should be looking closer at directivity performance because there's a lot of information in that off-axis data. Looking at horizontal directivity and soundstage performance, I think both speakers are quite similar, the DBR 62 is slightly better in some respects and the polk is better in others. I'd guess the polk might sounds a littttttttlleee wider, based on more energy aroudn 4-6kHz, and maybe the ELAC would be a little more accurate in its imaging but we're really splitting hairs.

Elac DBR62 off-axis (smoothed to 1/12 octave for clarity):
View attachment 132948

Polk R200 off axis: (you can ignore below 200ish hz, directivity information there is notaccurate
View attachment 132949
By the way, this is another a good example of how a waveguide is not a magical solution to directivity problems. The elac is really barely better than the polk in terms of beaming behavior.

Now the normalized data for the DBR62:
View attachment 132950

Quite a bit of bunching due to the on-axis diffraction. How much this is an issue is hard to know. I really don't like the big 6dB step between 3kHz and 5kHz though. That's too low a frequency for a drop like that imo.

R200:
View attachment 132951

Also a lot of bunching around 5kHz because of the on-axis diffraction but a bit of a smoother step down after that. I'd consider both of these roughly in the same class.

Most people don't listen on-axis for home listening though(plus the R200 is too bright on-axis), so sometimes I like to normalize to an off-axis angle instead, say, 20 degrees.

DBR62 normalized to 20 degrees horizontal:
View attachment 132952

R200:
View attachment 132955

Again, really in the same class.

One more way of looking at the horizontal data is taking the averages that make up the early reflections curve. Here I've compared the listening window and predicted sidewall reflections (40-80 degrees). R200 in Blue, DBR62 in red.
View attachment 132958

Here you can more clearly see that both speakers have a similar amount of bunching/diffraction, but the R200 does so at higher frequencies, which will probably mean larger apparent sources/slightly wider sounder soudnstage. You can also see the R200 beams more in its sidewall reflections, but the DBR62 does have a fair bit of it as well.

Looking at the total horizontal reflections, which includes rear and front wall reflections in addition to sidewalls, and the horizontal early reflections DI, the R200 balances out very nicely while the elac is very close but a little less smooth horizontal DI overall.
View attachment 132959

So there's my super nitty gritty take on directivity. Taking both the direct sound and off-axis into account, I think the R200 just edges out the Elac, but they are both quite good. The R200 also seems to have slightly more bass extension but it's too close for me to be comfortable making that call given the relative variability of DIY nearfield measurements compared to the NFS.

Wow. What an excellently thorough response! The R200 seems to edge out the DBR62 to my eye. That conclusion also seems to be supported by the preference scores (6.3 vs 5.7).

 

[Supalite SV]

I assume you mean the DBR62?

Without anyone having heard both speakers together, and without both speakers being measured on the same system, it's hard to compare as they're both very good. They're close enough that the small differences are likely a matter of preference rather than one being clearly better than the other. As I usually say when speakers are this close, I'd go for whichever you think is prettiest.

That said, if I had to choose based on the data (it's impossible to remove my bias of having heard the polk and liked it alot though), I'd choose the R200. My data usually compares reasonably well to amir's with some flexibility in bass amount, and it appears the R200 is a bit more neutral and has a slightly wider soundstage. Although they are close enough that it's questionable how audible that extra neutrality is.

View attachment 132945The DBR62 does seem to be tuned a touch warmer/darker overall though, while perhaps having a slightly more recessed midrange.

Now, I generally feel people here should be looking closer at directivity performance because there's a lot of information in that off-axis data. Looking at horizontal directivity and soundstage performance, I think both speakers are quite similar, the DBR 62 is slightly better in some respects and the polk is better in others. I'd guess the polk might sounds a littttttttlleee wider, based on more energy aroudn 4-6kHz, and maybe the ELAC would be a little more accurate in its imaging but we're really splitting hairs.

Elac DBR62 off-axis (smoothed to 1/12 octave for clarity):
View attachment 132948

Polk R200 off axis: (you can ignore below 200ish hz, directivity information there is notaccurate
View attachment 132949
By the way, this is another a good example of how a waveguide is not a magical solution to directivity problems. The elac is really barely better than the polk in terms of beaming behavior.

Now the normalized data for the DBR62:
View attachment 132950

Quite a bit of bunching due to the on-axis diffraction. How much this is an issue is hard to know. I really don't like the big 6dB step between 3kHz and 5kHz though. That's too low a frequency for a drop like that imo.

R200:
View attachment 132951

Also a lot of bunching around 5kHz because of the on-axis diffraction but a bit of a smoother step down after that. I'd consider both of these roughly in the same class.

Most people don't listen on-axis for home listening though(plus the R200 is too bright on-axis), so sometimes I like to normalize to an off-axis angle instead, say, 20 degrees.

DBR62 normalized to 20 degrees horizontal:
View attachment 132952

R200:
View attachment 132955

Again, really in the same class.

One more way of looking at the horizontal data is taking the averages that make up the early reflections curve. Here I've compared the listening window and predicted sidewall reflections (40-80 degrees). R200 in Blue, DBR62 in red.
View attachment 132958

Here you can more clearly see that both speakers have a similar amount of bunching/diffraction, but the R200 does so at higher frequencies, which will probably mean larger apparent sources/slightly wider sounder soudnstage. You can also see the R200 beams more in its sidewall reflections, but the DBR62 does have a fair bit of it as well.

Looking at the total horizontal reflections, which includes rear and front wall reflections in addition to sidewalls, and the horizontal early reflections DI, the R200 balances out very nicely while the elac is very close but a little less smooth horizontal DI overall.
View attachment 132959

So there's my super nitty gritty take on directivity. Taking both the direct sound and off-axis into account, I think the R200 just edges out the Elac, but they are both quite good. The R200 also seems to have slightly more bass extension but it's too close for me to be comfortable making that call given the relative variability of DIY nearfield measurements compared to the NFS.

Thank you. I’ve ordered R200

 

[napilopez]

Wow. What an excellently thorough response! The R200 seems to edge out the DBR62 to my eye. That conclusion also seems to be supported by the preference scores (6.3 vs 5.7).

Yeah, in terms of the preference score it's simple, a little more bass, a little flatter on axis, a little smoother PIR. In my book horizontal directivity is roughly equal, so there isn't much of an obvious objective advantage for the elac in any particular realm.

This, of course, all assumes that the measurements are comparable. Would love to see amir or Erin get their hands on the R200 as if my measurements hold up it really seems like these are the ones to beat for the price in the passive world.

 

[richard12511]

Yeah, in terms of the preference score it's simple, a little more bass, a little flatter on axis, a little smoother PIR. In my book horizontal directivity is roughly equal, so there isn't much of an obvious objective advantage for the elac in any particular realm.

This, of course, all assumes that the measurements are comparable. Would love to see amir or Erin get their hands on the R200 as if my measurements hold up it really seems like these are the ones to beat for the price in the passive world.

Your measurements have proven to be very accurate so far, so - until proven otherwise - I'll assume that's true here with the R200 as well

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

I don't suppose you've had the R100 to compare, too.

 

[napilopez]

I do not unfortunately. However I fidelity measured the R100 and though their measurements are heavily smoothed, you can see the R100 displays quite similar overall behavior -- which is to say it's mostly flat:

https://www.i-fidelity.net/testberichte/hifi/polk-reserve-r100/seite-5.html

So i'd be pretty confident about the R100's performance and it might even have better verticals due to the smaller difference between woofer and tweeter sizes

 

[q3cpma]

Your measurements have proven to be very accurate so far, so - until proven otherwise - I'll assume that's true here with the R200 as well

Don't know, the 8341A power response was quite different, but on-axis is quite faithful. Certainly looks like an interesting speaker, would probably be even better if they went full waveguide and/or ditched the ring radiator, but I'm sure the marketing guys would faint.
Personally, I'd like to see the new Paradigm Founder measured.

 

[napilopez]

Don't know, the 8341A power response was quite different, but on-axis is quite faithful. Certainly looks like an interesting speaker, would probably be even better if they went full waveguide and/or ditched the ring radiator, but I'm sure the marketing guys would faint.
Personally, I'd like to see the new Paradigm Founder measured.

Imo, the deviations for my measurements of the 8341A on-axis and power response for my measurements vs amirs were pretty much the same. Amir's consistently showed more energy in the mids. My on-axis had more bass but my SP had less bass, likely a limitation of the nearfield method and VCAD being unable to 'guess' off-axis directivity correctly. But both of our measurements differed a fairly similar amount from genelec's official measurements. Although it's worth noting neither my measurements nor genelecs show the bump that amir has in the mids.

On-axis (Genelec is white, im blue, asr is red)

My SP vs Amir's and Genelecs:

As I've noted elsewhere, my experience is that speakers with highly curved baffles (especially curved from top to bottom) are more prone to deviations based on stand placement. In this case I'm pretty sure the gap between the speaker and the floor stand caused by the Isopod causes some funkiness. I'd be willing to bet good money that's the cause of the bump in amir's measurements (or the lack of one in mine and genelecs)

Can't know for sure without measuring the same speaker unit in different setups though.

For the R200 I'd expect a few minor bumps around 500-1KHz that might show up on the NFS but not my measurements, and it's possibly a similar situaiton where the low bass of the SP and on-axis are kind of 'swapped.' In general a speaker with a rear-firing port to have an SP that rises above the on-axis a bit. But we'll see!

 

[q3cpma]

Imo, the deviations for my measurements of the 8341A on-axis and power response for my measurements vs amirs were pretty much the same. Amir's consistently showed more energy in the mids. My on-axis had more bass but my SP had less bass, likely a limitation of the nearfield method and VCAD being unable to 'guess' off-axis directivity correctly. But both of our measurements differed a fairly similar amount from genelec's official measurements. Although it's worth noting neither my measurements nor genelecs show the bump that amir has in the mids.

On-axis (Genelec is white, im blue, asr is red)

View attachment 133442

My SP vs Amir's and Genelecs:

View attachment 133452

As I've noted elsewhere, my experience is that speakers with highly curved baffles (especially curved from top to bottom) are more prone to deviations based on stand placement. In this case I'm pretty sure the gap between the speaker and the floor stand caused by the Isopod causes some funkiness. I'd be willing to bet good money that's the cause of the bump in amir's measurements (or the lack of one in mine and genelecs)

Can't know for sure without measuring the same speaker unit in different setups though.

For the R200 I'd expect a few minor bumps around 500-1KHz that might show up on the NFS but not my measurements, and it's possibly a similar situaiton where the low bass of the SP and on-axis are kind of 'swapped.' In general a speaker with a rear-firing port to have an SP that rises above the on-axis a bit. But we'll see!

My experience is that Genelec's sound power measurement may be done in an actual diffuse field chamber and with a few points, at least it was a long time ago. What weirded me is that 1 kHz dip you get here, though the on-axis difference is probably a bit responsible for this.

Good idea about the vertically curved baffle, a bit of the stand might indeed reflect some. That stand should probably be rounded a bit.

 

[napilopez]

My experience is that Genelec's sound power measurement may be done in an actual diffuse field chamber and with a few points, at least it was a long time ago. What weirded me is that 1 kHz dip you get here, though the on-axis difference is probably a bit responsible for this.

Good idea about the vertically curved baffle, a bit of the stand might indeed reflect some. That stand should probably be rounded a bit.

Yeah, I remember early on in my learning-to-take-measurements process, I tried to set speakers on a pair of iso-acoustics aperta on top of my floor stand, assuming it couldn't do any harm. While for most speakers the effect was negligible, on a couple with a bit of vertical curvature there was a small but clear change in the frequency response because of that gap.

 

[ROOSKIE]

@napilopez if the R200 can be a sonic competator to the HDI1600, what are your thoughts on the R200 and the 4309? I am actually cross shopping both as I am shopping for another pair of speakers (this set for the living room so I am leaning toward the 4309 due to unique look, L82 is another option but I like the look a bit less than 4309.)

 

[napilopez]

@napilopez if the R200 can be a sonic competator to the HDI1600, what are your thoughts on the R200 and the 4309? I am actually cross shopping both as I am shopping for another pair of speakers (this set for the living room so I am leaning toward the 4309 due to unique look, L82 is another option but I like the look a bit less than 4309.)

The HDI-1600 and 4309 are really quite similar so I likewise think the Polk are competitive. Tbh for my tastes I preferred the Polk a bit to either. As much as the bunching in the presence region is a flaw, it does lead to a bit more of an expansive image, and I think I appreciated the slight forwardness to the sound here.

I also got the impression it was more neutral than the JBLs and it sounded closer the the Genelec 8341s in tonality. But of course the huge caveat that this is mainly audio memory. A bit less pristine than the Genelec, but again, I preferred the spatial presentation on the polks. Maybe it's my space but consistently the big waveguide speakers don't fully do it for me (other than the D&D 8C). I definitely preferred the L82s to the HDI-1600 and 4309. With the tweeters in the outer position, I loved its spatial presentation.

But overall I'm splitting hairs and they're all truly quite good. I'm not confident enough in my sighted listening impressions to make a definitive assessment on which speaker is best, just letting you know what I recall and hopefully it'll help you decide. I hope Amir or Erin gets their hands on one of the Reserve speakers though because I'd love to see some more detail in the lower mids.

 

[Streamc]

How is their sensitivity? What amp do I need to drive them?