• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Børresen speakers

How mature. Questioning ones language skills because they simply disagree with you.

Can you explain how I somehow missed your point, but also said this in post #62.

"I'm not sure what you're even trying to get at, seems like some sort of quest to convince people that the speakers are not that bad."

Was I wrong? Are you suggesting that you can decide for me, what I think a bad speaker is?


I mean I go this site, read almost every speaker review. I design speakers with a process that usually entails capturing a lot of data and importing into software like Vituixcad. I look at RTA's on mixing consoles at least 2 days a week for work, and utilize manufacturer specific sim software to determine array positioning and coverage. But hey I guess I just don't know how to read a FR measurement ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Good luck on your quest, doesn't seem like it will be a fruitful one but I certainly won't try to get in your way.
I explained what I meant, clearly you don't get it, I'm not inclined to try again.

FWIW I think it's a bad speaker especially at the price. I don't think it's a disaster. You do, I respect that opinion.

I would not buy it. I would not recommend anyone buy it.

Clear enough?
 
I explained what I meant, clearly you don't get it, I'm not inclined to try again.

FWIW I think it's a bad speaker especially at the price. I don't think it's a disaster. You do, I respect that opinion.

I would not buy it. I would not recommend anyone buy it.

Clear enough?
I'm glad you cleared that up! I was sure for a few pages you were trying to get other members to think it wasn't that bad. I guess since bad speakers never hurt anyone, you have a point.
 
Can we please get back on topic here. :(
 
I'm glad you cleared that up! I was sure for a few pages you were trying to get other members to think it wasn't that bad. I guess since bad speakers never hurt anyone, you have a point.
There's certain traits I look at in the measurements that tell me I'd actually find the speaker unlistenable

Here's a couple of examples


Whilst the Borrensen is bad it doesn't have those traits - at least not to the necessary extremes - I probably wouldn't be compelled to leave the room when they were put on.

Obviously this is personal at least to some extent. I can accept others having a much lower threshold for what they will tolerate.
 
I would not agree to that, and I would like to know what exactly was intolerable?

As mentioned, they are not neutral, and seem to have some kind of deliberately imbalanced sound in order to create a certain impression. The measurements don't look good indeed, but after having heard them and getting an impression of how impactful narrow dips and peaks were in reality, I would say that only the recessed brilliance band 2-3.5K and the overly fat, yet not bloated, upper bass, were instantly recognizable from the charts.
The treble is tipped up, and there's some kind of terrible bass hump to compensate for a lack of low bass in even very large models.

I will now have to avail myself of the 'ignore' button. I wish you well.
 
There's certain traits I look at in the measurements that tell me I'd actually find the speaker unlistenable

Here's a couple of examples


Whilst the Borrensen is bad it doesn't have those traits - at least not to the necessary extremes - I probably wouldn't be compelled to leave the room when they were put on.

Obviously this is personal at least to some extent. I can accept others having a much lower threshold for what they will tolerate.
These are well beyond my personal threshold, irrespective of price. I have two speakers that might rival them, both vintage, both interesting attempts from the '70s based on quite failed ideas. I've measured both of them, gained some understanding of why they sound the way they do, even why some of the odd ideas were misguided and led to resonances and uneven response, not even as bad as the Børresen. One is in regular use in our guest room, it plays classical music in the background for my mom and her dog, looks great, and it makes me happy despite having sound that would disqualify it from consideration if I were wanting to buy a speaker. It in no way would make me 'compelled to leave the room'. Even the Auditorium 23 won't compel me to leave the room. Unless it's playing too loud.

I guess if the threshold is 'want to leave the room', they are fine.
But that doesn't change the valid critical comments about them.
The price makes this whole thing absurd.
In any case, we could go in circles about personal standards of good. Since ASR is mostly about audio products for reproducing music, most of the people here likely have 'buy the speaker' as a threshold, not 'flee the room'.
 
This comes pretty close to a sonic disaster IMO.
View attachment 468509
Tangent speakers in the UK late 70s era did this via various means - and sounded really good I recall, albeit without quite the sharp response dips (TM1 and 3, RS2 and 4). Definitely a psychoacoustics range, but it damned well worked in a smaller room and flattered the ears and minds so well!
 
The treble is tipped up, and there's some kind of terrible bass hump to compensate for a lack of low bass in even very large models.

If my brief listening test with a similar model is representative, I would say these are likely to being two flaws which look dramatic on the graph but are actually non-existent or tolerable in a listening test. The enhanced treble level simply disappears with greater listening distance and no toe-in due to pretty pronounced directivity narrowing of the planar tweeter. With such tweeter, a designer has to make a choice at which angle or in which listening window to provide balanced treble.

The bass hump was more than audible in terms of tonal balance (and I would not like it with lower strings, male choirs and alike), but not leading to terrible booming as it produced pretty ´tight kick bass´. Chances are high that a speaker measuring perfectly well under anechoic conditions, will produce something more terrible in a room with room modes. If you don't like it, you have to EQ it, and chances are high that you can.

What I found to be audibly off and would make me never consider such speaker, is not as obvious in the measurements, you have to really look twice. It is the recessed brilliance band (somewhere 2-4K), particularly underrepresented off-axis, plus some sort of ´sucked-out´, phasey, dominantly resonant behavior one octave lower. It is seemingly leading to a very distant impression of imaging, exaggerated ambience, weird spacious reverb and lack both of proximity and dynamic impulsiveness, if that makes sense.
 
@Arindal
I think we agree most of the way - except the fact that such an expensive speaker, as Børresen, is not something you just buy for fun or curiosity - it's the price of a good car.
So objective measurements - like Erin's - help us find and see the flaws that most likely will make a given loudspeaker most enjoyable for the longest time.
I can tolerate a lot of different speakers for a shorter period of time, but especially the break-up in the midrange is something that just annoys me too much in the long run.
Everything in the measurement of that loudspeaker, screams problems - right in the middle of the most sensitive area of our hearing - really not good :facepalm:
 
If my brief listening test with a similar model is representative, I would say these are likely to being two flaws which look dramatic on the graph but are actually non-existent or tolerable in a listening test. The enhanced treble level simply disappears with greater listening distance and no toe-in due to pretty pronounced directivity narrowing of the planar tweeter. With such tweeter, a designer has to make a choice at which angle or in which listening window to provide balanced treble.

The bass hump was more than audible in terms of tonal balance (and I would not like it with lower strings, male choirs and alike), but not leading to terrible booming as it produced pretty ´tight kick bass´. Chances are high that a speaker measuring perfectly well under anechoic conditions, will produce something more terrible in a room with room modes. If you don't like it, you have to EQ it, and chances are high that you can.

What I found to be audibly off and would make me never consider such speaker, is not as obvious in the measurements, you have to really look twice. It is the recessed brilliance band (somewhere 2-4K), particularly underrepresented off-axis, plus some sort of ´sucked-out´, phasey, dominantly resonant behavior one octave lower. It is seemingly leading to a very distant impression of imaging, exaggerated ambience, weird spacious reverb and lack both of proximity and dynamic impulsiveness, if that makes sense.
Indeed I bet they sound great from a mile away.
Expensive rubbish and indefensible.
Keith
 
So objective measurements - like Erin's - help us find and see the flaws that most likely will make a given loudspeaker most enjoyable for the longest time.

We agree on the fact that this speaker is likely not to produce a neutral, accurate sound and we both would not like it. Some people might nevertheless appreciate exactly that.

Objective measurements are helpful to understand why, and judge the technical side of the speaker, but in this particular case they are IMHO not capable of predicting the audibly most annoying flaws as they are kind of hidden. You have to listen and judge yourself which I would always recommend.

I can tolerate a lot of different speakers for a shorter period of time, but especially the break-up in the midrange is something that just annoys me too much in the long run.

Did you listen to this particular model, or a similar one?

I fully agree that midrange cone breakup and audible resonances can pose a big problem and produce intolerable flaws, but I can say they did not turn out to be sounding like I would have expected it by just looking at the measurements.

Again: I am not defending this speaker, I am recommending to be cautious with quick condemning verdicts solely based on measurements. Other cases might turn up where this method is outright wrong.
 
How many 'audiophiles' actually go to concerts of acoustic unamplified instruments, or maybe even a simple jazz group at the local pub, at least to get a general 'vibe' for natural sounds (accepting that recordings are usually done in a studio and manipulated in varying degrees). When I started to take natural timbres more seriously, I used 50s jazz recordings as more of a reference (they went in, did the take and if it went wrong, they did it again, rather than 'fixing it in the mix' as done today). Jazz isn't my music scene, but it damned well helped me back then. I also have eternally fond memories of Quad '57 electrostatics, which 'did' string tone better than real strings did I remember - but my Gawd, you could hear straight through the speakers so easily, regardless of their flaws ;)

The post above regarding audiophile respect more of engineering, cachet, price tags and the story woven around various products is very true in my experience. We're spoiled here on ASR, as so many inexpensive tested products perform so very well, as long as the simpler casework and in the case of speakers, with bare carcasses and no grilles, can be tolerated at home :)
 
Oh I agree.... never judge quickly, judge fairly and wisely, I just haven't heard a speaker that had these very well known flaws, to sound good in the long run.
So yes, be very cautious - about buying them, because you might be tempted to sell with a big loss, in a short while, when reality kicks in.
I've heard a few of their bigger models at exhibitions. And my impression fits pretty well with what has been already said.
Interesting - I would specifically say, that objective measurements precisely specify many flaws, that we as humans often can't put our fingers on.
When I hear a speaker, and think to myself, something is off. I very likely, and often, find out what is going on, by measuring it. But it can be a little difficult sometimes, because not one measurement can do it all. You have to almost reverse engineer what the original designer made, and then combined that with your findings, to sort out the issue.

I actually think, that very few people that actually could afford these speakers, actually care about measurements. I've encountered sooooooo many people who rant and complain about a given sound, not knowing that their challenge, was often quite simple.

Almost all I know, have slowly adapted to DSP, multiple subwoofers, some level of room-correction( mostly just EQ) and speakers with some higher level of smooth and even dispersion characteristics. Even a handful of them just bought a pair of KEF's of any model/year - and mostly calmed way down, and enjoyed the music much more - me included - even though a DIY version.
Børresen is just obviously and objectively far and away from this. They look kinda nice, and that is important to some more than others.

If I should advise anyone in choosing a loudspeaker, it would be to write down the speakers that you always like, no matter where you hear them. Then figure out their similarities, and you might have much better chance to find the one you would most likely enjoy owning, the most :)
 
If I should advise anyone in choosing a loudspeaker, it would be to write down the speakers that you always like, no matter where you hear them. Then figure out their similarities, and you might have much better chance to find the one you would most likely enjoy owning, the most :)
Pretty much how I chose my 'final' speakers.
 
I love my C1s! They make me dance! :)
And as @Arindal motioned, in my case they have a recess from 2k.
Or I can look at it this way, in my room they have a bump from 400-2k which I can tame with some EQ.
1762425575525.png
 
That is the most incoherent tangled mass of frequency response, decay and distortion problems I think I have ever seen. I don't know if I'd be able to achieve this if I tried on purpose.
If you want to try on purpose just invert a former correct polarity of the mid to get such a result.
They should have invested at least into a Umik 1 :cool:
 
Back
Top Bottom