Affordable Accuracy Monitor Review

[Objectivist01]

Guys can you help me in finding which is the original woofer used in the pioneer? I found the tweeter used in the mod for 40$ the pair and I wanted to try building these speakers from scratch, I also found the electrical scheme of the crossover so now I just need to know which is the woofer model, can you help me?

I think it’s cheaper to get the Orginal speaker than building it up from scratch as the shape of Orginal box plays a role in resultant sound. The crossovers are redesigned to still match the box shape.
And without proper machinery it’s hard to make a curved box. At a larger factory it’s cheap to make it because they use the machines to make lots of them. With regular boxes I agree diy can save some money.

 

[QMuse]

What is the use of using the spinorama data, once a microphone etc is at hand at home? Of course the EQ could be applied virtually, the calculations for some rating can be redone with EQ in charge. But, as far as I see, the alterations don't exceed 3dB anywhere, which is quite within a tolerance band that was once defined related to human hearing. Ja, the upper mids are a bit hot. But, how does it look like, if the reference axis changes, e/g by exaggerated toe-in?

The addressed potential customers of this little cheapy are expected to care a bit less about straight right correct sound, than we do. So they wouldn't listen fastened hemselves into the infamous critical listening ( ) stereo triangle.

This kind of broad deviation is *not* addressed by the Olive rating specifically, as far as I can derive from the formula. In that the Olive rating--please check yourselves--falls behind the standards for German monitor speakers. The latter doesn't allow for broad-band deviations. +/-3dB or so are only acceptable if it is a narrow band deviation, some wiggle. The spec gives only a hint on it, instead of defining it mathematically, though.

What You do? Throw these little marvels into Your listening room. See what Your individual not-predicted-but really-measured in-room power response looks like, EQ it to Your liking ( "preference" it was, right? ). Please report! (You might want to explore the effect of a thick curtain, or carpet too.)

Tweeter stress? Changed tweeter, changed damping, changed XO, somebody wants the "woofer" being changed? I personally do not like the visual design.

Correction like this is definitely audible, according to Toole's research wide correction of resonances for even as little as 1dB are audible. This correction would not only improve the preference score but it would also improve the tonal balance which orignally sounds too "bright".

 

[GelbeMusik]

Correction like this is definitely audible, according to Toole's research wide correction of resonances for even as little as 1dB are audible. This correction would not only improve the preference score but it would also improve the tonal balance which orignally sounds too "bright".

Sure, but it is not resonance. ( Did You cross-check if broad-band deviations are specifically addressed by Olive's rating? ) Isn't "preference score" about tonal balance?

 

[QMuse]

Sure, but it is not resonance. ( Did You cross-check if broad-band deviations are specifically addressed by Olive's rating? ) Isn't "preference score" about tonal balance?

Toole addresses all peaks as "resonances". Olive's rating addresses linearity and smoothness in general, so broad-band deviations are more taken into acount than narrow ones. High preference score implies neutral tonal balance preferred by most of the listeners.

There's a book and a thread that will answer your questions. I suggest you read them both.

 

[mk05]

while this is a great value speaker, Eqing it flat is risky business in the 1-3k range. The tweeter is stressed as it is and as such Has a pretty big rise in distortion.

Thank you for this information. I didn't know EQing introduces distortion to a speaker's established design specifications. This is a negative to roomEQ/DSP solution that I was hoping for.

What You do? Throw these little marvels into Your listening room. See what Your individual not-predicted-but really-measured in-room power response looks like, EQ it to Your liking ( "preference" it was, right? ). Please report! (You might want to explore the effect of a thick curtain, or carpet too.)

Tweeter stress? Changed tweeter, changed damping, changed XO, somebody wants the "woofer" being changed? I personally do not like the visual design.

Personally, the original measurements along with an EQed measurement is extremely helpful to newcomer's like myself. Why? Because it shows me what is possible in a randomized environment. Published measurements are fine, but that's what they are to me - specs from (usually) an idealized setup that isn't my own. A custom roomEQ tells me, at the very least, what the speaker can achieve given random instance of room challenges. The more an more I read, the more I cement the belief that roomEQ/DSP solution is one of the most important factors to ideal reproduction.

 

[QMuse]

Thank you for this information. I didn't know EQing introduces distortion to a speaker's established design specifications. This is a negative to roomEQ/DSP solution that I was hoping for.

Applying high boost in EQ filters may lead to increased distortion, but there is no boost in the 1kHz-3khz range - instead there is attenuation and that is why I said that driver actually got relieved with this EQ filter.

 

[GelbeMusik]

Toole addresses all peaks as "resonances". Olive's rating addresses linearity and smoothness in general, so broad-band deviations are more taken into acount than narrow ones. High preference score implies neutral tonal balance preferred by most of the listeners.
There's a book and a thread that will answer your questions. I suggest you read them both.

I don't have question, I have answers some people don't seem to appreciate, to say the least. I'm not thinking along a book, You know? I don't think that Toole would address all "peaks" as "resonance". He addresses resonances as peaks (minimum phase). That's a subtle difference. Same with the rating and broad-band deviations from behaving well. I understand that You understand that they are not addressed specifically as broad-band. Hence 'coloration' which gravitates towards--ja--coloration is not part of the picture. Only "tilt" and "smoothness" are considered so far. In case I err, please tell me the parameter that I then would have missed. Thanks You.

 

[QMuse]

I don't have question, I have answers some people don't seem to appreciate, to say the least. I'm not thinking along a book, You know? I don't think that Toole would address all "peaks" as "resonance". He addresses resonances as peaks (minimum phase). That's a subtle difference. Same with the rating and broad-band deviations from behaving well. I understand that You understand that they are not addressed specifically as broad-band. Hence 'coloration' which gravitates towards--ja--coloration is not part of the picture. Only "tilt" and "smoothness" are considered so far. In case I err, please tell me the parameter that I then would have missed. Thanks You.

Well, if so many people are not appreciating the answers you're offering maybe you should rethink their validity.

 

[Objectivist01]

I don't have question, I have answers some people don't seem to appreciate, to say the least. I'm not thinking along a book, You know? I don't think that Toole would address all "peaks" as "resonance". He addresses resonances as peaks (minimum phase). That's a subtle difference. Same with the rating and broad-band deviations from behaving well. I understand that You understand that they are not addressed specifically as broad-band. Hence 'coloration' which gravitates towards--ja--coloration is not part of the picture. Only "tilt" and "smoothness" are considered so far. In case I err, please tell me the parameter that I then would have missed. Thanks You.

Are you using the German to English translation?

 

[GelbeMusik]

Well, if so many people are not appreciating the answers you're offering maybe you should rethink their validity.

Yepp, that is why I ask ( request !? ) for the consideration of broad band deviations from whatever is considered good behavior, e/g "flat". I don't think that validity is a specific property of the metric, as it is disclosed in the patent. At least German recommendations for monitors are very clear on the point of gravitational effects of broad-band non-linearities, whilst not stating any particular metric for it.

Personally, the original measurements along with an EQed measurement is extremely helpful to newcomer's like myself. Why? Because it shows me what is possible in a randomized environment. ...

What a newcomer needs is, to learn how to adjust a speaker to personal needs. The randomized data can help to select a promissing candidate, though.

 

[QMuse]

Yepp, that is why I ask ( request !? ) for the consideration of broad band deviations from whatever is considered good behavior, e/g "flat". I don't think that validity is a specific property of the metric, as it is disclosed in the patent. At least German recommendations for monitors are very clear on the point of gravitational effects of broad-band non-linearities, whilst not stating any particular metric for it.



What a newcomer needs is, to learn how to adjust a speaker to personal needs. The randomized data can help to select a promissing candidate, though.

I already told you Toole mentioned in his book that we are sensitive to resonances with low Q even if their amplitude is only 1dB. I really suggest you read the book for more details or use the search function on this forum as this has been thoroughly discussed in severall threads.

 

[gfx_1]

There is no use in cutting the edges on design, and becoming generous with the material.

I referred to a tweeter to be used with a Dayton woofer that is a 6.5" that demands a lower crossover point like 1900Hz. On paper it looks reasonably flat below 2kHz. But did not consider things like it's own resonance frequency etc.
I have bookshelf's with a Vifa ringradiator and a 5,5" woofer, the crossover is not complicated and it sounds nice.

 

[mk05]

Would it be a safe assumption to say that ideal speaker design would not have any break-ups or crossovers in the (critical voice) range frequency of 200hz-2.5kHz? I think I read a little on this, but no authoritative guide - or rather, general rule of thumb.

Any listening experiences/perspectives and research links regarding this would be greatly appreciated!

 

[GelbeMusik]

I already told you Toole mentioned in his book that we are … as this has been thoroughly discussed in severall threads.

I don't read books. At least not in public. I don't follow books, never. I don't allow Toole to say what I am. I think there is a big misunderstanding. I'm actually a scientist. Again, considerations regard broad-band colorations, anybody?

I referred to … and it sounds nice.

Sorry. Some Tymphany tweeters measure quite well. With waveguide attached they are hard to beat. An XO of about 1kHz is possible and reasonable. My apologies.

 

[edechamps]

I already told you Toole mentioned in his book that we are sensitive to resonances with low Q even if their amplitude is only 1dB. I really suggest you read the book for more details or use the search function on this forum as this has been thoroughly discussed in severall threads.

And to be more specific, the study commonly cited to support this finding is this one.

Do note, however, that this finding is only about detection thresholds, not preference. The impact of low-Q, low-amplitude (i.e. "broad trends" in frequency response) on preference is controversial.

 

[QMuse]

And to be more specific, the study commonly cited to support this finding is this one.

Do note, however, that this finding is only about detection thresholds, not preference. The impact of low-Q, low-amplitude (i.e. "broad trends" in frequency response) on preference is controversial.

Thank you! My initial remark was indeed about audibilty of the low-Q, low-amplitude filter I used in EQ.

 

[GelbeMusik]

Thank you! My initial remark was indeed about audibilty of the low-Q, low-amplitude filter I used in EQ.

Yeah, it was, that initial remark, but only in parts, maybe. Only that I responded, that my question (requirement) wasn't about "resonances" but about just humble broad-band deviations--as I said initially. You towed the topic on Your terrain, namely what is written somewhere, so You could defend Your standpoint referring to some authority, namely Toole in this case.

Of course my question isn't answered yet. You say: "Read the book!" I say: "It is exactly because it is not considered in the book / model." You say: "Resonances are." I say: "What the heck …?"

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Amazing what can be done for the price. Dennis no longer makes speakers under Philharmonic Audio, but nearly all of Jim Salk's speakers are designed by Dennis, although unfortunately none in this price range. I have a pair of Salk WOW1 monitors on the way and may send to Amir to review.

Just noticed this. Jim has made some really gorgeous WOW1 cabinets. What veneer and finish did you opt for?

 

[goldark]

Just noticed this. Jim has made some really gorgeous WOW1 cabinets. What veneer and finish did you opt for?

I got deep rose red Chen Chen with burst edges. I'm sure it'll be beautiful in person. There was a delay due to suspending operations because of Covid, but I believe Jim is back up and running so the current timeline puts me at about a month away. How does something like the WOW1 compare to your affordable accuracy monitors here? (In terms of sound and measurements)

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I got deep rose red Chen Chen with burst edges. I'm sure it'll be beautiful in person. There was a delay due to suspending operations because of Covid, but I believe Jim is back up and running so the current timeline puts me at about a month away. How does something like the WOW1 compare to your affordable accuracy monitors here? (In terms of sound and measurements)

They should be beautiful. Of course, even Jim won't be able to match the timeless elegance of the Pioneer black vinyl. The WOW1 is definitely a step up from the AA monitor (it better be). The tweeter has better dispersion and is pretty much state of the art in 3/4" domes. And the W12 Excel woofer is in an entirely different class than the Pioneer woofer. The distortion is several orders of magnitude lower, and the f3 point is around 50 Hz, or at least 20 Hz lower than the Pioneer. The last time I checked, Madisound was selling it for around $200 a pop.