B&O Beolab 20 Speaker Review

[CrustyToad]

Thanks to Amir and the member for the review
Definetely interesting to see different speaker designs tested
But indeed was disappointing

 

[amj101]

Sound power DI is around -5dB or lowe for the important frequencies. There aren't many other similar speakers out there. Yes the revel are also pretty wide.

According to a forum post on DIYAudio, B&O does appear to prioritize power response over frequency response, which may(?) explain some of the percieved wonkiness in the measurements.

There was a lot of talk about the importance of the power response (the power response of a loudspeaker signifies the sound pressure averaged over all directions of radiation rather than just one - basically the combination of the on and off axis response in 3 dimensions ) over the frequency response. They believe that having a smooth power response is more important than a smooth frequency response for a speaker.

Cloning a $3200 Speaker for $400

I am very happy with my home speakers, but I've been working for the past few years to get some of that magic in my car. I've tried everything from tractrix horns to Unity waveguides, and everything in between. Recently I stumbled across a design which looks promising, so thought I'd document...

www.diyaudio.com

 

[amirm]

According to a forum post on DIYAudio, B&O does appear to prioritize power response over frequency response, which may(?) explain some of the percieved wonkiness in the measurements.

Harman research shows that focusing on sound power goes against listener preference. Consumer Reports used to use this scheme and Harman showed that fidelity actually has negative correlation with sound power. B&O must know this so going this way is very odd for them.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Harman research shows that focusing on sound power goes against listener preference. Consumer Reports used to use this scheme and Harman showed that fidelity actually has negative correlation with sound power. B&O must know this so going this way is very odd for them.

That's an interesting point, but I think a lot of people would appreciate an explanation of the difference between power response and frequency response. I always thought power response was a measure of the overall radiation into a room. I'm not sure how the term "frequency response" is being defined here.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Once again, as for the TAD Evolution 2 that we saw some time ago,https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/tad-evolution-2-speaker-review.38949/ it is here and perhaps more than elsewhere of marketing positioning to touch a target of potential purchasers, if the price was in line with the audio quality we would have been for a long time and our forum would have no reason to be...

That said, it is a huge disappointment especially in front of all the publications emanating from the high ranking engineers in the audio research who passed by Bang&olfusen notably on AES.

Maybe there is a new policy in this company since it is under Chinese flag ? (article in french ) https://www.lesnumeriques.com/audio/bang-olufsen-devient-chinois-n51373.html

Interesting point. I'd actually forgotten it was taken over by the Chinese. -Rather that's not entirely true. They own 15 % of shares AFAIK.

Oh and for the voting, I voted great. I have heard them and I think they sound very good.

 

[375HP2482]

Maybe there is a new policy in this company since it is under Chinese flag ? (article in french ) https://www.lesnumeriques.com/audio/bang-olufsen-devient-chinois-n51373.html

I read the article. So, one Asian guy now owns the biggest piece.

My favorite line: "B&O remained focused on sedentary products for a long time."

Hear that, people? You're spending all that money just to remain motionless.

 

[JktHifi]

Is your preference for 2-ways based on just those two speaker models or did you audition others as well?

Actually I shared this view myself many years ago based on the opinion that for the same budget one would get better drivers and better x-over parts and this would result in better SQ. This might be true for low budgets but certainly not higher up.

Not just those 2 models but from my previous experience between different brand and type. I found the 2-way is always better.

More expensive as the result of more components. And more components mean more complexity for the system. This kind of complex system can create benefit and can also downgrade if something went wrong.

 

[amirm]

That's an interesting point, but I think a lot of people would appreciate an explanation of the difference between power response and frequency response. I always thought power response was a measure of the overall radiation into a room. I'm not sure how the term "frequency response" is being defined here.

Sure. Briefly, our perception is dominated by the direct sound (i.e. on axis) due to precedence effect. What we hear first, implants the overall impression of sound. Soundpower dilutes the direct sound with all the reflections in the room, resulting in erroneous prediction of listener preference. The proper sampling of the off-axis response is the early window reflections which I show in CEA-2034. Soundpower does have value but only in predicting bass response.

 

[fineMen]

Harman research shows that focusing on sound power goes against listener preference. Consumer Reports used to use this scheme and Harman showed that fidelity actually has negative correlation with sound power. B&O must know this so going this way is very odd for them.

Because assessing the speaker in mono is the most revealing method, Harman refers to mono listening when assessing a speaker. I wonder how this may correlate to stereo listening, especially if the consumer is not positioned in the famous stereo triangle.

Literally all people I know personally would never bother to take seat in the stereo-optimzed geometry, let alone staying there even if asked to do so. One might argue that the system isn't designed to perform well under such circumstances, and ignorants may be ignored.

I wonder why a wide dispersion speaker in particular could become preferable at a price point of 10k$ and more. B&O's flagship speaker (100k$) allows to swich back and forth between narrow and wide for a reason I don't know. If there is any demand for it, it may be 'critical listening' versus listening just for fun?

Regarding the Harman research, reiterated, the resulting standard is the best improvement to emerge in many decades, I still wonder, though, if the test panel was preoccupied to select the most hifi-ish speaker as opposed to a real personal preference for use at home. Human minds are complicated.

 

[audiofooled]

If the power response is their goal, someone kindly point it in the measurements. All I can see is a lot of diffraction and resonances, possibly the result of, as someone said, form over function design. If enclosure is bell shaped, that's one problem. Where do you put the drivers, that's another. How far apart they are placed, a third one. Radiation pattern with regards to oddly shaped edges surrounding the drivers, a fourth one. Time alignment, supposedly handled by DSP, possibly well, but still... Finally distortion, as someone already said, enclosure too small for so much bass extension, and so on.

The result? I am sure they may sound fine with some ideal setup/room/program material. I voted not terrible, but at this price tag, I am disappointed that we don't see only great performing speakers and nothing less.

 

[bluefuzz]

A $500 speaker in a $14,500 party frock

Fairly typical for B&O I think.

 

[diddley]

Tin Pan Alley Now we are talking!
Regarding the Beolab; Form over function, and thats a pity but ofter with products from B&O.

Thanks Amir for this review!
And i'm gonna listen today to my SRV collection!

 

[dogmamann]

For this money we can buy Kef references which are the state of the art at their price. What a waste of 15K.

 

[sarumbear]

Rooms behaviour at 20-30 Hz for the B&O vs well above that for the KEF and Revel examples could be the explanation. I get ~15 dB boost from my room's first and second long modes (~25 and 50 Hz respectively) but things are quite different at 70-100 Hz.

Shouldn't than the DSP in the speakers that is set-up by the company rep. with a laptop, compensate those room modes at least a bit? What is the point of room acoustics compensation if it doesn't work?

 

[Mart68]

Shouldn't than the DSP in the speakers that is set-up by the company rep. with a laptop, compensate those room modes at least a bit? What is the point of room acoustics compensation if it doesn't work?

could it be that most music does not have frequencies that low, and music that does sounded better with the very low frequencies boosted? In that particular room.

The only subjective complaint was slight brightness in the top end, not boomy bass.

 

[sarumbear]

could it be that most music does not have frequencies that low, and music that does sounded better with the very low frequencies boosted? In that particular room.

The only subjective complaint was slight brightness in the top end, not boomy bass.

You are talking subjective quality while I'm talking objective measurements. Do you mean B&O specifically boost those frequencies or ignore them? If so what is the point of a room equaliser?

 

[Axo1989]

Shouldn't than the DSP in the speakers that is set-up by the company rep. with a laptop, compensate those room modes at least a bit? What is the point of room acoustics compensation if it doesn't work?

Yes, I know my application of Sonarworks certainly addresses those room modes for my speakers and listening area. I've no experience how B&O works.

As @Mart68 says, it may not have presented an audible issue, it may even sound good/better depending on program material. Hearing sensitivity at the very bottom sub-bass end of the audible spectrum is much lower as you know. It's likely complicated a bit where B&O have variable loudness compensation always on, if I understand that correctly. It's quite possible that curve is intentional, at the measurement level.

With simple passive speakers and no protection, naturally I don't push compensation so far down the FR spectrum in my setup, that would break the woofers. If I want loudness, I have to turn the whole thing up.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

could it be that most music does not have frequencies that low, and music that does sounded better with the very low frequencies boosted? In that particular room.

The only subjective complaint was slight brightness in the top end, not boomy bass.

I have a +17 dB peak or so at around 31 Hz in my room. I can assure you it is not good unattended. Most music activates this mode more or less because it's so pronounced. And music that has low bass is drowned in it.

 

[Mart68]

You are talking subjective quality while I'm talking objective measurements. Do you mean B&O specifically boost those frequencies or ignore them? If so what is the point of a room equaliser?

I was thinking that they could have reduced the amplitude of those frequencies with the DSP but chose not to in this particular instance, for subjective reasons.

It's an in room measurement, measured after B&O had set them up how they wanted them to sound. Anechoic with no DSP would be the objective measurement, and could be used in comparison to the anechoic measurement for a passive, non-equalised speaker. But we don't have that data.

 

[Axo1989]

I have a +17 dB peak or so at around 31 Hz in my room. I can assure you it is not good unattended. Most music activates this mode more or less because it's so pronounced. And music that has low bass is drowned in it.

If we take 0 dB as reference (for Stereophile's measurement of B&O 90) they are up not quite 10 dB at 30 Hz. Not so bad I expect.