Emotiva Airmotiv B1+ Review (Bookshelf Speaker)

[Sancus]

Lowest note of any acoustic instrument bar organ is around 30 Hz. Why do you need speakers to reproduce 20 Hz when there are hardly any instruments generate the frequency?

There is plenty of EDM and hip hop that goes below 30hz in addition to organ music, which, yes, plenty of people listen to. You can't call something full range if it literally excludes audible frequencies, as far as I'm concerned. Resources required aren't relevant to this definition.

 

[hardisj]

I thought someone poo pooed that idea earlier when someone else asked? Box dimension are wrong for sealed design?

I'm not saying this particular design, but generally that it would make more sense IMHO to design a speaker that has the ability to be both rather than design two otherwise-same speakers.

 

[sarumbear]

dB(C) 115dB at the MLP is what I was getting at in the post you quoted.

In the post you quoted I defined room size.

In that post you have not not defined the room size. You mentioned large, medium, etc. That is not a definition as they are subjective. You have now however defined it (though you omit the unit!)[/QUOTE]

Large room for me would have a MLP of 4m+. So 2 speakers would need to be able to produce 20Hz @115dB c weighted at 4m at minimum for me to consider them "full range" for a large room...My main room, for example is 20x20x10

C-frequency-weighting will measure around 6dB lower in 20Hz as -3dB half-power cut-off point is 31.5Hz. This means your actual SPL is 115 + 6 = 121dB at 1 m (you failed to define the distance but I am assuming that is what you meant).

Two subwoofers will give you 3dB gain and a room that is large enough to create a 20 Hz wave gives you approximately another 8dB. That means each speaker should produce around 110dB SPL at 20Hz.

I have attached a spreadsheet that analyses the relationship between SPL vs power requirement of subwoofers. It was created by my good friend Siegfried Linkwitz RIP.

Earlier you said you accept the Revel Salon 2 as full range speakers. They have three 8.5" woofers. That equals to around a single 15" woofer. Using the spreadsheet we can see that in order for the Salon 2 to reproduce your reference level the cones of the woofers should move around 6cm (the excursion). That is about 5 times more than they can.

There you are; I have demonstrated that your reference is an utopia.

 

[sarumbear]

Your chart is missing the most common instrument in today's world, "The Computer"

Look again. What is title of the bottom bar?

 

[richard12511]

.

You're still missing the point and I'm guessing you're trying to win some argument. Not gonna open your attachment, as I'm assuming it's an attempt to win that argument that I'm not having and don't care about in the first place.

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, and it's not relevant at all to this Emotiva. You asked me what I view as a full range speaker, I answered in vague terms that are clearly miles beyond anything this little 5" woofer can do, and that's all that matters. What does whether or not I consider the Salon2 full range have to do with this Emotiva? I don't consider this Emotiva bookshelf as a full range speaker, and that's all that matters as qualification to make my initial point. BTW, I don't consider the Salon2 as a full range speaker either in my main room(which is why I specified medium) .

Finally, if it's a utopia, than I guess that means my main system is a utopia , as it can do 10Hz at 115db+ at 4m.

 

[richard12511]

Look again. What is title of the bottom bar?

That's because I'm not taking this conversation very seriously, and it was a joke(hence the ""). My eyes are too old to see the text of the chart from here. I suppose I should have got up and looked more closely.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I thought someone poo pooed that idea earlier when someone else asked? Box dimension are wrong for sealed design?

You might be refering to my posts.
You can deff plug that port and will obviously block any resonaces from leaving the port.
I was just stating that there are some minor side effects such as a lower power handling and likely higher distortion levels in the bass region of approx 50-100hrz at high volumes in a sealed vs ported.(but a HP filter will mute that issue) Deff the need to high-pass rather than just try to blend a sub in without actually high passing the B1+.
It would be easy to plug the port and experiment. You can even start by just shoving some balled up socks in there until you get a better plug.

 

[richard12511]

I'm not saying this particular design, but generally that it would make more sense IMHO to design a speaker that has the ability to be both rather than design two otherwise-same speakers.

Gotcha. In that case, I agree. That would be the ideal.

Would be interesting to see what the most common usage of these speakers are. HT? 2 channel? 2.1? I'm sure Emotiva considered all of this at some point, and they decided that absolute extension was more important than the small fidelity gain higher up in the frequency range.

 

[richard12511]

You might be refering to my posts.
You can deff plug that port and will obviously block any resonaces from leaving the port.
I was just stating that there are some minor side effects such as a lower power handling and likely higher distortion levels in the bass region of approx 50-100hrz at high volumes in a sealed vs ported.(but a HP filter will mute that issue) Deff the need to high-pass rather than just try to blend a sub in without actually high passing the B1+.
It would be easy to plug the port and experiment. You can even start by just shoving some balled up socks in there until you get a better plug.

Gotcha. I don't own these speakers, though I do have the T2+(and I don't consider them fullrange either @sarumbear ), but I was wondering if stuffing the port with socks would eliminate some of that resonance. Sounds like it might. You do lose that extension, but if that doesn't matter(crossing to subs), then it may be worth it. Definitely worth it to try, I'd say.

 

[Rick Sykora]

As with a number of other speaker reviews, the discussion seems to end up focusing on a flaw when the speaker is doing many things well considering the real world tradeoffs (cost, quality, performance, etc.). For smaller ones, the fallback crutch solution is to add a subwoofer. Then the follow-on is that it really just needs to be a sealed design. Then why do I need this speaker at all? I can go find any number of good sealed ones!

In this case, the discussion is focused on a nearfield port resonance measurement. Not sure the measurement has compensated for membrane effects or whether it is audible for most (if any listeners). On the job, would often have someone come to me with a solution for a problem that was small or not well understood. Am somewhat concerned that the emphasis on port resonances falls into this camp. Perhaps it is simply a case of not sacrificing the good for the perfect?

 

[richard12511]

As with a number of other speaker reviews, the discussion seems to end up focusing on a flaw when the speaker is doing many things well considering the real world tradeoffs (cost, quality, performance, etc.). For smaller ones, the fallback crutch solution is to add a subwoofer. Then the follow-on is that it really just needs to be a sealed design. Then why do I need this speaker at all? I can go find any number of good sealed ones!

In this case, the discussion is focused on a nearfield port resonance measurement. Not sure the measurement has compensated for membrane effects or whether it is audible for most (if any listeners). On the job, would often have someone come to me with a solution for a problem that was small or not well understood. Am somewhat concerned that the emphasis on port resonances falls into this camp. Perhaps it is simply a case of not sacrificing the good for the perfect?

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.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 4.7
With Sub: 7.1

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Reasonably flat
• Someone has to do something about port resonances (there quite a few papers in the AES...)
• Decent directivity
• Some work but a solid basis

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 5.8
with sub: 8.0

Score EQ Score: 6.0
with sub: 8.2

Emotiva B1+ APO EQ LW 96000Hz
April122021-103236

Preamp: -2.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 44.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 109 Hz Gain -1.31 dB Q 1.59
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 654 Hz Gain -1.3 dB Q 4.81
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 993 Hz Gain -2.93 dB Q 5.83
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1300 Hz Gain -3.24 dB Q 6.84
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3387 Hz Gain -0.87 dB Q 2.49
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8003 Hz Gain -2.46 dB Q 13.4
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 15680 Hz Gain -1.79 dB Q 2.07

Emotiva B1+ APO EQ Score 96000Hz
April122021-102734

Preamp: -2.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 44.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 114 Hz Gain -1.21 dB Q 1.4
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 648 Hz Gain -1.19 dB Q 3.81
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 973 Hz Gain -2.93 dB Q 5.35
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1287 Hz Gain -2.97 dB Q 4.97
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 3859 Hz Gain -1.27 dB Q 1.18
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 7920 Hz Gain -1.93 dB Q 7.68
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 14433 Hz Gain -2.12 dB Q 1.3

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal flat with EQ score

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

The cheapest commercial full range speaker I know of is like $7,000, and most are $20,000 or more. No way are you getting full range performance with a $250/pair speaker.

Well, $3,500/pair

As with a number of other speaker reviews, the discussion seems to end up focusing on a flaw when the speaker is doing many things well considering the real world tradeoffs (cost, quality, performance, etc.). For smaller ones, the fallback crutch solution is to add a subwoofer. Then the follow-on is that it really just needs to be a sealed design. Then why do I need this speaker at all? I can go find any number of good sealed ones!

In this case, the discussion is focused on a nearfield port resonance measurement. Not sure the measurement has compensated for membrane effects or whether it is audible for most (if any listeners). On the job, would often have someone come to me with a solution for a problem that was small or not well understood. Am somewhat concerned that the emphasis on port resonances falls into this camp. Perhaps it is simply a case of not sacrificing the good for the perfect?

I think the frequency response plots tell you whether there's an audible problem in the upper midrange. There definitely is. And from the nearfield of the woofer, it looks like it's due to the port. I certainly picked up on the tell-tale murky quality in that frequency range when I listened to the first generation B1. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have bothered with the mod.

 

[GWolfman]

They have the T0 which is sort of a bookshelf in a larger cabinet (like a small tower).

That looks like a floorstanding to me, is it not?

 

[Eetu]

Can you please explain how you reached that as a "fact" by using data?

Perhaps take a look at these:
https://www.harman.com/documents/multsubs_0.pdf
https://audioroundtable.com/misc/Welti_Multisub.pdf

These Emotivas with an amp + MiniDSP + 2 properly integrated and placed subs would make a great little system.

 

[DuncanTodd]

That looks like a floorstanding to me, is it not?

It can stand on the floor without additional stands but it's quite small and light from what I understand. It's 2-way and adds an extra 5-1/4” midwoofer.
Many don't like the exterior design of the Airmotiv series which was not mentioned here, but I suppose it makes sense as the focus is on performance. It's not as hideous as the JBL Studio series though. It's a matter of taste of course.

 

[richard12511]

Well, $3,500/pair

Maybe not technically full range by my prior standards, but close enough . I'm actually really looking at the BMR towers. Full range and measurements that good(assuming it's on par with BMR) is one of the best values I've seen. Above the bass, how would you say it compares to the BMR? Similar dispersion width?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Maybe not technically full range by my prior standards, but close enough . I'm actually really looking at the BMR towers. Full range and measurements that good(assuming it's on par with BMR) is one of the best values I've seen. Above the bass, how would you say it compares to the BMR? Similar dispersion width?

Right--it's not going to compete with the Salon 2 in terms of maximum SPL. As the name of my company suggests, my reference point for full range operation is Wagner sounding like Wagner at high volume in a large room (mine is 40 feet wide by 25 feet deep, with open areas to the hallway and basement). I don't design for reference-level HT without a sub, or for electronic "music" with sub-20 Hz content. For people interested in obtaining reference level reproduction below 25 Hz, it just makes more sense to me to put the required price premium into high quality subs.

The new BMR tower sounds very similar to the bookshelf model. The towers have a slightly more focused and cleaner sound in the lower treble, which may be due to the MTM configuration. Otherwise, the two speakers are identical until you hit 36 Hz, where the tower remains flat and the bookshelf starts to roll off. I can rattle picture frames with the towers at 20 Hz, but the response is down by around 6 dB.

 

[restorer-john]

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).

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

 

[Rick Sykora]

Well, $3,500/pair

I think the frequency response plots tell you whether there's an audible problem in the upper midrange. There definitely is. And from the nearfield of the woofer, it looks like it's due to the port. I certainly picked up on the tell-tale murky quality in that frequency range when I listened to the first generation B1. If I hadn't, I wouldn't have bothered with the mod.

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?