Andrew Jones quote

[RoA]

A Jones' reply to measurements of the Elac Navis ARB51 by Hometheaterhifi.com

'Through experience, I have found the best compromise. I could easily, with DSP, equalize any response curve I want to look very flat. This never sounds the best solution.

I also never listen to any speaker directly on-axis. This is always the point of maximum symmetry and worst-case frequency response due to diffraction, even with regular non-concentric speakers.'

A Jones

 

[Zvu]

Well, i urge you to look at Pioneer TAD measurements, done by John Atkinson from Stereophile magazine, that utilize the same/similar concept as Elac dual concentrics. Andrew Jones worked for years for TAD and developed much (if not all) current models. They are flat as much as a loudspeaker can be flat. Maybe tilted a little toward highs but very flat.

 

[sharock]

For completeness, the review and the entire reply from AJ, rather than a cherry-picked section.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...navis-arb-51-active-bookshelf-speaker-review/

Thanks for the review. Altogether a good, well-reasoned review of what the product does and what my objectives were.

The only commentary I really have is with respect to your interpretation of some of the measurements, and the anomalies seen in the response curves.

Pretty much every anomaly that shows up is not due to resonances, but due to diffraction related artifacts.

It’s astonishing when you look at driver response, and make measurements going from very close in, all the way out to 2m, and see the effects of diffraction start to intrude and mess up the smoothness of the response!

Even the dip at 2.8kHz is due to diffraction imposed on the tweeter, and not the crossover point. The 8kHz dip is due to tweeter/cone interference, and the 14kHz dip is due to the cone/baffle interface.

These are not easy to get rid of and are a consequence of the concentric process. There are some designs that have mostly eliminated some of them, but that process can introduce other problems.

As you show, the most severe dips even out off-axis. The 2.8kHz evens out in the vertical direction. As a result, I always design to balance the overall power response with the axial response rather than optimize for one parameter only.

Through experience, I have found the best compromise. I could easily, with DSP, equalize any response curve I want to look very flat. This never sounds the best solution.

I also never listen to any speaker directly on-axis. This is always the point of maximum symmetry and worst-case frequency response due to diffraction, even with regular non-concentric speakers.

Measures that can be taken to reduce diffraction, such as very heavily radiused cabinet edges (2” radii for example) almost never look good and also considerably add to the cost.

The secret to speaker design, especially low cost or very high value, is applying the best compromise between necessity and cost.

Thanks once again for a great review.

All the best

Andrew

 

[RoA]

Well, i urge you to look at Pioneer TAD measurements, done by John Atkinson from Stereophile magazine, that utilize the same/similar concept as Elac dual concentrics. Andrew Jones worked for years for TAD and developed much (if not all) current models. They are flat as much as a loudspeaker can be flat. Maybe tilted a little toward highs but very flat.

That may be but is not what he is saying now ...

 

[wrat]

For completeness, the review and the entire reply from AJ, rather than a cherry-picked section.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...navis-arb-51-active-bookshelf-speaker-review/

" radiused cabinet edges (2” radii for example) almost never look good and also considerably add to the cost."

I find this to be a crappy excuse I would take better sound over looks ANYTIME

 

[Zvu]

For completeness, the review and the entire reply from AJ, rather than a cherry-picked section.

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...navis-arb-51-active-bookshelf-speaker-review/

Thanks for this. This adds whole other dimension to sentence quoted by the OP.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I would take better sound over looks ANYTIME

My guess is that you are in a tiny minority for domestic purchases.
Yes for pro monitors of course, Genelec "ones" are totally compromised aesthetically for SQ IMO but that is fine and good for their intended market.
I wouldn't be happy looking at them in my home though, personally, and that is the case with almost everybody I know who thing any speaker bigger than a shoebox is obtrusive

 

[wrat]

My guess is that you are in a tiny minority for domestic purchases.
Yes for pro monitors of course, Genelec "ones" are totally compromised aesthetically for SQ IMO but that is fine and good for their intended market.
I wouldn't be happy looking at them in my home though, personally, and that is the case with almost everybody I know who thing any speaker bigger than a shoebox is obtrusive

That may indeed be so yet it does not make it any less true my wife and I had apogees in the living room at one point

 

[sergeauckland]

My guess is that you are in a tiny minority for domestic purchases.
Yes for pro monitors of course, Genelec "ones" are totally compromised aesthetically for SQ IMO but that is fine and good for their intended market.
I wouldn't be happy looking at them in my home though, personally, and that is the case with almost everybody I know who thing any speaker bigger than a shoebox is obtrusive

From what I can tell, anything bigger than an Echo Dot is considered intrusive.

It was ever thus. Even back in HiFi's golden era of the 1970s & '80s, so many people put their 'speakers behind the sofa, or one behind the sofa, the other on top of a shelf unit. The number of people amongst my acquaintances that had anywhere near correctly positioned stereo loudspeakers could be counted on one hand. However, the TV was always up-front. More so when colour came in. People started leaving their curtains open so neighbours could see they had colour. As to flat, Plasma and LED TVs...

 

[q3cpma]

My guess is that you are in a tiny minority for domestic purchases.
Yes for pro monitors of course, Genelec "ones" are totally compromised aesthetically for SQ IMO but that is fine and good for their intended market.
I wouldn't be happy looking at them in my home though, personally, and that is the case with almost everybody I know who thing any speaker bigger than a shoebox is obtrusive

Not everybody lives in a house made of wooden parallelepipeds... I'm sure I'm not alone in really liking Genelec's look (made by a supposedly renowned designer, they didn't completely focus on performance at the expense of design)

PS: I noted the use of "IMO" and "personally", just saying that I really think Genelec really tried to make them as pretty as possible, in their own nordic style; it's clearly different from PA stuff that's actually what I'd call "no attention to design".

 

[Frank Dernie]

I had apogees in the living room at one point

So did I!

 

[More Dynamics Please]

Form follows function and beauty is as beauty does are two old sayings that come to mind when I think of speakers. My sense of visual esthetics is greatly influenced by functional performance.

 

[RoA]

Thanks for this. This adds whole other dimension to sentence quoted by the OP.

In what way?

His different designs measure all over the place, depending on what day of the month. Equally his design ethos seems to have an alarming inconsistency.

He is a Master Marketeer, I'll give him that.

 

[Katji]

Form follows function and beauty is as beauty does are two old sayings that come to mind when I think of speakers. My sense of visual esthetics is greatly influenced by functional performance.

That's better than the other way around.

 

[Zvu]

In what way?

His different designs measure all over the place, depending on what day of the month. Equally his design ethos seems to have an alarming inconsistency.

He is a Master Marketeer, I'll give him that.

Your partial quote changed the whole context of his thought. That is border line rude, if you are asking me.

If you read the whole text Andrew wrote and see nothing wrong with your action, any further argument is futile.

I can comment Andrew's designs but i am also aware that they are made to fall within borders of predetermined price tag. I look at what he did in TAD and what he does at Elac. I see that he knows what he is doing, but what restrictions he is dealing with, that i don't know.

 

[DSJR]

So did I!

And your wife loved them?

A colleague and old pal had Duetta Signatures until the bass panels loosened off so much they nearly fell out of their mounts ( ). His better half fortunately liked the sound. Mine dislikes speakers period Said pal now has some very large Martin Logans although we live far apart and I haven't heard them.

 

[mhardy6647]

Why not ask Mr. Jones (Dr. Jones?) any of one's questions directly? He's a member here -- or at least he was, last I knew...
@AndrewJ

 

[wrat]

And your wife loved them?

A colleague and old pal had Duetta Signatures until the bass panels loosened off so much they nearly fell out of their mounts ( ). His better half fortunately liked the sound. Mine dislikes speakers period Said pal now has some very large Martin Logans although we live far apart and I haven't heard them.

My apogees had a similar fate and I too now have Martin Logans and yes my wife liked the sound not as much the aesthetics but was and is ok with it

 

[Kachda]

These active NAVIS speakers are bit of an odd design. They are powered, but the crossover is analog and no DSP is built in, huh ? And for Andrew Jones to say that DSP has some unspecified problems seems a bit hand-wavey ? No one seems to complain of DSP in Genelec speakers.

 

[richard12511]

Not everybody lives in a house made of wooden parallelepipeds... I'm sure I'm not alone in really liking Genelec's look (made by a supposedly renowned designer, they didn't completely focus on performance at the expense of design)

PS: I noted the use of "IMO" and "personally", just saying that I really think Genelec really tried to make them as pretty as possible, in their own nordic style; it's clearly different from PA stuff that's actually what I'd call "no attention to design".

Yeah, the Ones in white are some of my favorite speakers in terms of just aesthetics. White is a great color for speakers. Combine that with the fully sculpted baffle(I dislike rectangular prisms) and perfectly contrasting black woofer, and it’s a great art piece, especially in a modern designed home. There are speakers I like the look of more(top end B&W/Sonus Faber/Focal, and Grimm LS1be in white), but the ones would be in my top ten, certainly over all rectangular speakers.The contrasting black woofer is huge for me, as I don’t enjoy the light gray grills they use for other models.

Aesthetic preference seems to be one of those subjective elements that’s all over the place, though. I can’t stand the look of most grills, for example, but for others they’re a must. I also dislike the vintage look, while others love it.