Danny Richie's latest...

[Andysu]

He’s a good salesman for sure. And I am guilty of enjoying his upgrade videos.

 

[Andysu]

Yes, it is the AFTER eq graph. The graph title does not call this out well, so I updated my post to emphasize.

My point is that the speaker's directivity wis good enough to use eq to remediate and NOT waste money on a ($750) crossover upgrade (that may still leave a bass shelf under 200 Hz).

just use 2nd hand used behringer dcx2496 to crossover partly eq out resonate peaks and system is ready far cheaper than £750

 

[Matt_Holland]

View attachment 408482
View attachment 408483

Hey, I’m allowed to enjoy fiction and comedy!

 

[OldHvyMec]

He’s a good salesman for sure. And I am guilty of enjoying his upgrade videos.

Well, he's a salesman, I'm not going to say he's great, but he is pretty good, he sure has his following though. He has that easy pitch that most people get along with. He's not confrontational but he does like to tweak what other people build. I'm halfway on board with that.

I've been known to argue with myself on quite a few occasions. Better me than someone else, I suppose. If all else fails with Danny he lines up the old BBQ. LOL
Pretty solid tactic, though I've never taken the trip or been invited. I was born in Waco and raised for a while in Moody/Temple area as a kid. I've listened to a
few of his speaker kits and owned a few too. Double Trouble (great servo system actually), LS6, Super 7s, not so much unless you have a gymnasium for the LS6/9s

Regards

 

[RickS]

I have called Danny out a few times on his YT channel where his crossover upgrade fixes an on-axis dip only to introduce an off-axis trend for a peak in its place, typically caused by baffle diffraction of the tweeter’s response. I believe the on-axis dip at the crossover point (earlier tweeter roll-off) is often deliberate so as to give a smoother in-room response when diffraction effects can’t be managed in other ways. It also improves power handling of the tweeter, useful in budget designs.

Danny is not incompetent by any stretch but he knows enough to convince the uneducated audiophile.

Some of his upgrades are very good and you can see this in the frequency responses, more often though he messes up the off-axis.

He’s a good salesman for sure. And I am guilty of enjoying his upgrade videos.

Yes, shared in the guilty pleasure of some of his teardowns as well. After a few though I realized, it was basically the same ole gimmick to sell upgrades. In some cases, like the RP6000F, somebody likely spent some serious money to ship them to him to only spend more for an expensive fix. He is either guilty of misleading his customer or not being technically astute enough to advise them better. So, the shady side of his upgrades started to bother me.

Ofc, I could go on about his snake oil products too but those caveats have been articulated already. Since he has shown that sales are more important to him than honesty, his ethics are no better than some of the large corporations he claims cheat consumers.

 

[Rikard]

Well, what would the ASR forum be without Danny? A librarian convention in an Amish church?

 

[RickS]

Danny is hardly the worst offender. ASR has a target rich surface when it comes to audio frauds. He just happens to be a frequent offender that is dangerous as he mixes some fact with his fiction. Eventually there will be enough better alternatives, and GR will go the way of (the original fraud of) AV123.

Until then, expect ASR and others to continue to shine the light to help others know when they are getting scammed.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Danny is hardly the worst offender. ASR has a target rich surface when it comes to audio frauds. He just happens to be a frequent offender that is dangerous as he mixes some fact with his fiction. Eventually there will be enough better alternatives, and GR will go the way of (the original fraud of) AV123.

Until then, expect ASR and others to continue to shine the light to help others know when they are getting scammed.

It is hard to read most ad copy for most audio equipment as it is written by the scammers, ah, I mean marketing people. I like that you can come onto ASR for FREE and get all the data you need from Amir's tests and then buy what fits your personal situation. Plus if you have any questions you can ask and get pages of answers. I need to donate to Amir again, it has been awhile. This site is worth donating too.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

He has recently developed a fix for the Cerwin Vega 316, priced at 755 USD. For a speaker that can be had for as little as 150.

 

[RickS]

He has recently developed a fix for the Cerwin Vega 316, priced at 755 USD. For a speaker that can be had for as little as 150.

Yes, he gets more than a few vintage speakers for alleged upgrades. Pretty sure the "upgrades" are priced to set up a bait and switch for one of his other speakers.

There has to be enough of an incentive for him to do as it takes time away from more core product development.

 

[Spkrdctr]

There are probably some nuts out there who will pay 4 times the cost of the speaker for an upgrade. More money = Better. People are just plain nuts about audio. But ASR tries to educate.......

 

[DanielT]

But here I think Danny has good points and a good solution. On axes, the Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 8's FR is pretty lousy. Especially considering their price.
The solution will probably cost a lot with Danny's expensive crossover parts, but there will be a solution.He'll get to that,in detail,in the next video, so it's not covered in the video below. If you have bought a pair of expensive Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 8, I'm guessing that you can imagine spending a decent amount of money on a better crossover, to fix a good FR. That while swearing at Wilson Audio when you open your wallet.

Danny's measurements (the upper ones in the screenshot) is very similar to Stereophile's results:

According to Danny, they dip down to 2.4 Ohm. According to Stereophile : There is a drop to 2.2 ohms at 77Hz (fig.1)

Wilson Audio Specialties WATT/Puppy System 8 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I couldn't lift the 170-lb WATT/Puppy 8 onto a tall stand for the acoustic measurements, so the farfield response measurements have less frequency resolution in the midrange than is usual. I don't believe this negatively impacted the speaker's measured performance to any...

www.stereophile.com

Danny's solution is to fix the top's FR (mid-tweeter). Let the top work in almost full range mode and then disconnect the bass boxes and power them up separately with a subwoofer plate amp (maybe with LP-HP filter? )

Danny switches the bass drivers from parallel to series to solve the low Ohm dipping problem. More amp power will then be needed with this switching but with 92 dB (according to Stereophile: sensitivity my estimate coming in at 92dB(B)/2.83V/m) when connected in parallel, there is little to "take off" when switching the double 8 inch bass drivers so they get connected in series.

 

[RickS]

But here I think Danny has good points and a good solution. On axes, the Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 8's FR is pretty lousy. Especially considering their price.
The solution will probably cost a lot with Danny's expensive crossover parts, but there will be a solution.He'll get to that,in detail,in the next video, so it's not covered in the video below. If you have bought a pair of expensive Wilson Audio Watt Puppy 8, I'm guessing that you can imagine spending a decent amount of money on a better crossover, to fix a good FR. That while swearing at Wilson Audio when you open your wallet.

What solution? Perhaps you meant proposed solution. Suggest we should wait for the actual implementation and some measurements before judging. He does do some baselining as you show below but chops off at 200 Hz with his usual excuses. If I just sent my expensive speaker to him, would hope he make some effort to show that he balances the bass output with the midrange output. He whines about the low impedance, but his proposed solution is a dedicated amplifier. Anyone who can afford these speakers, likely owns amplifiers that can drive them. While active bass does offer advantages, low impedance is NOT the reason to implement it. If the owner has cash to burn why not make it a fully active system?

Danny claims a big dip in the vertical off-axis response but does not specify the conditions. This is a big speaker with major spacing between drivers so the dip is to be expected. Later, he measures "lower" (location still unspecified) and it gets much better. You would expect this on most any tower speaker so no major find. Horizontal off-axis appears better but still do not know his measurement axis. Note his baselining against Stereophile stops at on-axis. As his off-axis "improvements" are often not a clear upgrade, let's wait and see what his measurements show.

Notice another major difference from his other videos? This one lacks the usual critique of the binding posts and the crossover parts. Are they good quality for an expensive speaker? How about the cabinet bracing and damping? If I owned these, would expect a more comprehensive exam....

Danny's measurements (the upper ones in the screenshot) is very similar to Stereophile's results:
View attachment 421805


According to Danny, they dip down to 2.4 Ohm. According to Stereophile : There is a drop to 2.2 ohms at 77Hz (fig.1)

Kudos for doing some baselining but Danny seems to be checking the box as does not carry much further. he does mention impedance curve baselining but kind of pointless if the FR basically matches. Still the FR is only above 200 Hz. Danny's proposes an active bass redesign but nothing more than impedance to justify a major subsystem upgrade? Seems like a pretty weak case at this point. Quality bass is such a key part of any speaker and a key differentiator for a larger one, but he gives it an overly lightweight analysis imo.

P.S. See no evidence in his youtube video that suggest to not be skeptical of Danny’s ability pinpoint real problems and apply objective fixes. Too often he applies crossover changes when straighforward equalization would likely be better and cheaper.

 

[DanielT]

Why does Danny never measure below 200Hz? Is it due to laziness?

In any case. You have good points, which I agree with.

I thought the solution of powering up the bass boxes separately actively was good, but as you say, you can just as well go all the way to make the entire speaker active.

BUT actually as I write this I saw that part two from Danny was posted so after watching; it is, according to Danny, baffle edge diffraction effects that make the tweeter's FR so choppy. He tests it and it seems to be correct. With a lot of felt placed on the inside of the speaker cover, the FR got better:


Of course some talk from Danny's side about the tube connectors and the new crossover he fixed, but Danny doesn't actually say much about it nor what it would cost.

Starting at 11:00, Danny starts discussing baffle edge diffraction effects:

 

[Matt_Holland]

What solution? Perhaps you meant proposed solution. Suggest we should wait for the actual implementation and some measurements before judging. He does do some baselining as you show below but chops off at 200 Hz with his usual excuses. If I just sent my expensive speaker to him, would hope he make some effort to show that he balances the bass output with the midrange output. He whines about the low impedance, but his proposed solution is a dedicated amplifier. Anyone who can afford these speakers, likely owns amplifiers that can drive them. While active bass does offer advantages, low impedance is NOT the reason to implement it. If the owner has cash to burn why not make it a fully active system?

Danny claims a big dip in the vertical off-axis response but does not specify the conditions. This is a big speaker with major spacing between drivers so the dip is to be expected. Later, he measures "lower" (location still unspecified) and it gets much better. You would expect this on most any tower speaker so no major find. Horizontal off-axis appears better but still do not know his measurement axis. Note his baselining against Stereophile stops at on-axis. As his off-axis "improvements" are often not a clear upgrade, let's wait and see what his measurements show.

Notice another major difference from his other videos? This one lacks the usual critique of the binding posts and the crossover parts. Are they good quality for an expensive speaker? How about the cabinet bracing and damping? If I owned these, would expect a more comprehensive exam....



Kudos for doing some baselining but Danny seems to be checking the box as does not carry much further. he does mention impedance curve baselining but kind of pointless if the FR basically matches. Still the FR is only above 200 Hz. Danny's proposes an active bass redesign but nothing more than impedance to justify a major subsystem upgrade? Seems like a pretty weak case at this point. Quality bass is such a key part of any speaker and a key differentiator for a larger one, but he gives it an overly lightweight analysis imo.

P.S. See no evidence in his youtube video that suggest to not be skeptical of Danny’s ability pinpoint real problems and apply objective fixes. Too often he applies crossover changes when straighforward equalization would likely be better and cheaper.

The lack of sub 200Hz measurements just baffles me. I don’t care if he doesn’t splice a nearfield but I do want to see the nearfield. The Stereophile graph shows a high Q peak in the bass and this could be caused by bass low pass filter. But zero analysis from Danny there. That alone could be a reason to go an active because inserting a low pass filter at around 200Hz nearly always messes up the bass alignment.

 

[Dave_Reite]

The lack of sub 200Hz measurements just baffles me. I don’t care if he doesn’t splice a nearfield but I do want to see the nearfield. The Stereophile graph shows a high Q peak in the bass and this could be caused by bass low pass filter. But zero analysis from Danny there. That alone could be a reason to go an active because inserting a low pass filter at around 200Hz nearly always messes up the bass alignment.

He's mentioned his reasoning on this numerous times and it's on his FAQ page. We can disagree with it.......but this is his stance.

Contact | GR-Research

gr-research.com

Dave Reite.

Why don't you measure below 200Hz?​

There are a few reasons for this:

1. We don’t own an anechoic chamber, so we use a gated time window of 4 milliseconds. This removes any & all room reflections from the measurement, giving us an anechoic measurement. However, the primary limitation is that it is only accurate to 200Hz. To accurately measure below 200Hz, you will need to take near-field measurements. Many Anechoic chambers are also limited to 80-100Hz.
2. In-Room measuremensts are largely unreliable. and should be taken with a large grain of salt. Your room size/shape, your listening position along the speaker placement within your room will be a big influence on the sound of your speakers, especially below 200Hz, where room modes will dominate the response, creating several dips & peaks. A measurement from the listening position might look very different from even 2-3 feet over. Speaker placement near a the front or side walls in a small room will also cause issues that wont show up in larger rooms with the speakers 3+ feet away from the front/side walls.
   Room treatment is the only real means to remedy those kinds of issues.
3. For our upgrade kits, the bass response is already determined by the manufacturer. Tuning for the bass of a speaker is determined via the driver, box size and the ports used when the manufacturer designed the speaker. We cannot change any of that without changing either the driver, the box or the ports. If there are issues, they were also present in the original speaker, or a room issue. Plus as frequencies get lower, the parts needed to make those adjustments only get larger and more expensive… so there’s no real means to fix them other than building a new box and using a different port, or changing drivers and building new boxes for those new drivers, but at that point, just get a different speaker…
4. For our own kits, we use the T/S parameters of the woofer(s) to calculate the necessary box volume and/or port dimensions needed for the desired tuning frequency. These calculations have been standard practice for determining the box size for a long time, ad the effects of an over/undersized boxes are already known. We tune the bass of our kits to be pulled away from the walls.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Our boy has supposedly corrected that nasty Wilson.

 

[RickS]

No bass measurements seems lazy but may just be his archaic measurement process and he conveniently never questions his original outdated assumptions. It is more effort, but Danny seems fine to question every other aspect but not whether the bass is well designed and performing well. His own designs (as measured by Amir) do not demonstrate competence in bass frequency response.

As I forewarned, Danny does not improve the horizontal off-axis which is the one of the most significant aspects of a speaker’s overall sound. He knows it too as he does not post before and after measurement pics. There is a major directivity problem in the 3-5 kHz range and he is distracting away from it with his diffraction claims.

Danny plays up alleged improved verticals by posting his before measurement at some unspecified worst case height that exaggerates the problem. Nobody seriously listens to a speaker sitting and standing. This is why the design is usually optimized towards a seated position and why the Stereophile measures are not nearly as bad.

At least we now know the original crossover was potted and the binding posts had some ferrous content (causing minute distortion when driver distortion is orders of magnitude worse). Too often with Danny, his cure misses or overcompensates for real issues.

 

[Matt_Holland]

He's mentioned his reasoning on this numerous times and it's on his FAQ page. We can disagree with it.......but this is his stance.

Contact | GR-Research

gr-research.com

Dave Reite.

Why don't you measure below 200Hz?​

There are a few reasons for this:

1. We don’t own an anechoic chamber, so we use a gated time window of 4 milliseconds. This removes any & all room reflections from the measurement, giving us an anechoic measurement. However, the primary limitation is that it is only accurate to 200Hz. To accurately measure below 200Hz, you will need to take near-field measurements. Many Anechoic chambers are also limited to 80-100Hz.
2. In-Room measuremensts are largely unreliable. and should be taken with a large grain of salt. Your room size/shape, your listening position along the speaker placement within your room will be a big influence on the sound of your speakers, especially below 200Hz, where room modes will dominate the response, creating several dips & peaks. A measurement from the listening position might look very different from even 2-3 feet over. Speaker placement near a the front or side walls in a small room will also cause issues that wont show up in larger rooms with the speakers 3+ feet away from the front/side walls.
   Room treatment is the only real means to remedy those kinds of issues.
3. For our upgrade kits, the bass response is already determined by the manufacturer. Tuning for the bass of a speaker is determined via the driver, box size and the ports used when the manufacturer designed the speaker. We cannot change any of that without changing either the driver, the box or the ports. If there are issues, they were also present in the original speaker, or a room issue. Plus as frequencies get lower, the parts needed to make those adjustments only get larger and more expensive… so there’s no real means to fix them other than building a new box and using a different port, or changing drivers and building new boxes for those new drivers, but at that point, just get a different speaker…
4. For our own kits, we use the T/S parameters of the woofer(s) to calculate the necessary box volume and/or port dimensions needed for the desired tuning frequency. These calculations have been standard practice for determining the box size for a long time, ad the effects of an over/undersized boxes are already known. We tune the bass of our kits to be pulled away from the walls.

Thank you but I get all this. The excuses are lame if you understand speaker design and measurement. But they sound very clever and justified to those that don’t.

Danny could even lengthen his measurement time window and provide a room response which would give us an idea of the bass response. If he did this in the same room and position every time we would be able to compare different speakers.

The fact he entirely ignores below 200Hz is lazy and does a disservice to his viewers, many of whom look to him as an educator and guru in speaker design.

 

[Dave_Reite]

Thank you but I get all this. The excuses are lame if you understand speaker design and measurement. But they sound very clever and justified to those that don’t.

Danny could even lengthen his measurement time window and provide a room response which would give us an idea of the bass response. If he did this in the same room and position every time we would be able to compare different speakers.

The fact he entirely ignores below 200Hz is lazy and does a disservice to his viewers, many of whom look to him as an educator and guru in speaker design.

Your point is taken.......but it's been made many times previously.
Apparently his viewers continue to send him money for products and services.......and they've been doing that for many years.

His whole shtick doesn't impress me and I know this guy rubs people the wrong way. But he is what he is and he's been doing it the same way for a long time.
It's up to you, but I suggest you just ignore him.

Dave Reite.