Dayton Audio B652-AIR Speaker Review

[oohlou]

Test a low end soundbar! I really want to see it. I suspect these B652-AIR will blow them away. Or even better: test TV speakers. I think we all want to see how high end speakers perform...but these speakers shouldn't be the lowest end of the test results. Show us what truly horrendous speakers sound like perform in your tests!

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Yes, the old version was bad. The AMT tweeter made it even worse.

Seems whenever someone runs a woofer full range it mucks up distortion higher up.

This is a terrific review. I love it because its comedy gold with prior reviews being so very wrong done with the eyes/ears methodology.

So for now we have a Biggest Loser. But is it the speaker which is the biggest loser or the loser-ville reviews everyone has done on these?

I disagree -- I own both and the AIR version (as long as the tweeter polarity is reversed, which is the way they have been shipped for a while) is better, and better still if you tame the tweeter a bit further was a little more series resistance. That said, it's still several worlds away from being a good speaker -- it's a bad speaker that's adequate in certain roles, but certainly not for enjoying well recorded music as a stereo pair.

 

[bobbooo]

Cheap speaker is garbage. In other news, water is still wet. More news at 11.

This just in - cheap USB DAC/amp, dongle, amp and DAC are among the best performing in their class. Stay tuned for a special report on the minimal correlation if any between price and sound quality of IEMs, headphones or audio electronics.

 

[ctrl]

Sure. They have independent parameters though (although share the gating setting)...
Same as CSD, I can change the parameters and get infinite variation of these graphs. You have to know what you are searching for before creating these graphs (e.g. deciding on time versus frequency resolution).

Okay, the possibilities are killing you
By default Arta, but also other measurement software scales to -30dB with 3dB or 1dB step per color. The color transitions should be as sharp as possible to increase readability.

Probably the best setting for the sonogram can only be found by trial and error.

Does such a diagram in the review really make sense?
It helps to classify irritations that appear in the Spinorama - is it a resonance, how severe is the resonance,...

Burst tones are supported but for a different purpose. There is no direct equivalent to this feature in ARTA.

I'm at a loss myself. Maybe the type of evaluation with the Klippel NFS has a different name.

Here is an extract from the Arta Manual:

No. There are two domains of analysis in Klippel:

1. Using their standard analyzer (KA3) and making simple measurements. Here, it is assumed you either use gated analysis or use anechoic chamber. Distortion, CSD, Sonograph, impedance, etc. all come out of this subsystem.

2. Robotic Near Field Scanner. This is a bolt on feature that uses #1 for measurements but then applies all the clever signal processing to model the soundfield and if asked, remove reflections.

There is a way to use #2 to remove reflections in measurements in #1. I have done a bit of testing on that and it indeed corrects the frequency response. I have not however looked to see if it also corrects the CSD, etc. to be reflection free.

With the approximately 30cm distance during the measurement, an evaluation up to 300-400Hz should be possible with gate.

If the Klippel NFS removes the room influences during frequency response, the evaluation of the CSD at lower frequencies should also be improved - I would assume.

 

[amirm]

With the approximately 30cm distance during the measurement, an evaluation up to 300-400Hz should be possible with gate.

Speaker is on a stand that is about 5 foot off the ground. It is the measurement distance from it (the robot arm) that is about 33 cm. Ceiling is tall so reflection-free zone is 4+ meters.

 

[Koeitje]

This just in - cheap USB DAC/amp, dongle, amp and DAC are among the best performing in their class. Stay tuned for a special report on the minimal correlation if any between price and sound quality of IEMs, headphones or audio electronics.

Electronics are easy and cheap to make (unless you need a lot of clean power from a power supply or have to dissipate a lot of heat). If you want to build a vibration free speaker enclosure you are already at the MSRP of this product. There is a minimum you have to spend to get the basics rights. The basic material cost of a loudspeaker is far beyond what any of the things you mention costs. There is a bar that has to be met for any piece of audio equipment and for speakers that is a bit higher than most other things.

Also there is 100% a correlation between cost and driver performance. There is a law of diminishing returns and selecting the right combination of drivers is more important than the individual performance, but there is most definitely correlation.


But sure, you keep dreaming about that $50 loudspeaker that crushes Genelec or Revel.

Yes, pretty much this. As much as it would be great which one of the current cheap passive speakers sound better, and I understand it's cheaper to analyse cheap speakers, to start with, I would happily appreciate measurements of more expensive stuff, like adam's t5v or a7x. Wanna upgrade from my yamahas. Anyways Amir already opened a thread asking what speakers you would like to see measured.

Well some people still think you can build low distortion high power amplifiers for $100 or speakers that rival midrange or entry level speakers from reputable brands such as Genelec for that kind of money. They don't seem to understand the base line costs involved.

 

[bobbooo]

Electronics are easy and cheap to make (unless you need a lot of clean power from a power supply or have to dissipate a lot of heat). If you want to build a vibration free speaker enclosure you are already at the MSRP of this product. There is a minimum you have to spend to get the basics rights. The basic material cost of a loudspeaker is far beyond what any of the things you mention costs. There is a bar that has to be met for any piece of audio equipment and for speakers that is a bit higher than most other things.

Also there is 100% a correlation between cost and driver performance. There is a law of diminishing returns and selecting the right combination of drivers is more important than the individual performance, but there is most definitely correlation.


But sure, you keep dreaming about that $50 loudspeaker that crushes Genelec or Revel.


Well some people still think you can build low distortion high power amplifiers for $100 or speakers that rival midrange or entry level speakers from reputable brands such as Genelec for that kind of money. They don't seem to understand the base line costs involved.

The Pioneer SP-BS22-LR works out at $59 a speaker, and is in the top 5 of speakers tested so far - the top 4 when used with a subwoofer, with a preference rating not far from the Neumann KH 80 DSP and Harbeth Monitor 30. I think that disproves your cheap speaker = garbage theory.

 

[maty]

@bobbooo

I doubt that the formula correctly reflects reality, nor that of SINAD with amplification. Unfortunately the reality is too complex.

 

[Koeitje]

The Pioneer SP-BS22-LR works out at $59 a speaker, and is in the top 5 of speakers tested so far - the top 4 when used with a subwoofer, with a preference rating not far from the Neumann KH 80 DSP and Harbeth Monitor 30. I think that disproves your cheap speaker = garbage theory.

You are actually proving my point, thanks for that.

Amir spoke to its designer and he literally said what I am saying: ""people making budget speakers put in 10 cent parts. I spend $1 and that makes a big difference!". Apart from that the Pioneer's sound field is still a mess and it falls apart at higher SPL levels. So its a decent speaker, but not some insane miracle.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Electronics are easy and cheap to make (unless you need a lot of clean power from a power supply or have to dissipate a lot of heat). If you want to build a vibration free speaker enclosure you are already at the MSRP of this product. There is a minimum you have to spend to get the basics rights. The basic material cost of a loudspeaker is far beyond what any of the things you mention costs. There is a bar that has to be met for any piece of audio equipment and for speakers that is a bit higher than most other things.

Also there is 100% a correlation between cost and driver performance. There is a law of diminishing returns and selecting the right combination of drivers is more important than the individual performance, but there is most definitely correlation.


But sure, you keep dreaming about that $50 loudspeaker that crushes Genelec or Revel.


Well some people still think you can build low distortion high power amplifiers for $100 or speakers that rival midrange or entry level speakers from reputable brands such as Genelec for that kind of money. They don't seem to understand the base line costs involved.

Well, one can build a high power stereo power amplifier for under $100 thanks to mass produced monolithic Class D ICs and commodity switch mode power supplies, -- and whether such an amp qualifies as "low distortion" depends on ones criteria for that description. Speakers are another matter entirely -- as you point out, the physics involved dictate a higher minimum cost for the bill of materials and assembly time involved.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You are actually proving my point, thanks for that.

Amir spoke to its designer and he literally said what I am saying: ""people making budget speakers put in 10 cent parts. I spend $1 and that makes a big difference!". Apart from that the Pioneer's sound field is still a mess and it falls apart at higher SPL levels. So its a decent speaker, but not some insane miracle.

So what you're suggesting is that more expensive speakers always measure better and have vibration free enclosures?

I think some good, volume-matched blind speaker testing would be very interesting...

 

[Koeitje]

Well, one can build a high power stereo power amplifier for under $100 thanks to mass produced monolithic Class D ICs and commodity switch mode power supplies, -- and whether such an amp qualifies as "low distortion" depends on ones criteria for that description. Speakers are another matter entirely -- as you point out, the physics involved dictate a higher minimum cost for the bill of materials and assembly time involved.

I have not been impressed by the budget class D offerings that have been measured.

So what you're suggesting is that more expensive speakers always measure better and have vibration free enclosures?

I think some good, volume-matched blind speaker testing would be very interesting...

That is not what I am saying. I am purely looking at it from a bill of materials point. You simply cannot get high fidelity for $100. Unlike what a $100 can buy you in terms of DACs and headphone amplifiers. For a $100 you barely get 2 decent cabinets.

And yes, a vibration free enclosure is one of the basic fundamentals of high fidelity loudspeaker design.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I have not been impressed by the budget class D offerings that have been measured.


That is not what I am saying. I am purely looking at it from a bill of materials point. You simply cannot get high fidelity for $100. Unlike what a $100 can buy you in terms of DACs and headphone amplifiers. For a $100 you barely get 2 decent cabinets.

And yes, a vibration free enclosure is one of the basic fundamentals of high fidelity loudspeaker design.

I have the Micca MB42x. They sound good. They are also pretty well-constructed. What exactly is "high fidelity?"

The problem with a lot of expensive speakers is that they use many of the same parts as cheap speakers. they just have a 200% profit margin rather than a 75% profit margin...

 

[Koeitje]

I have the Micca MB42x. They sound good. They are also pretty well-constructed. What exactly is "high fidelity?"

I know what is not "high fidelity": needing a subwoofer because it cannot do 50hz, fake bass boosts, uneven directivity and quickly distorting at decent listening levels.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I know what is not "high fidelity": needing a subwoofer because it cannot do 50hz, fake bass boosts, uneven directivity and quickly distorting at decent listening levels.

So there are no expensive bookshelf speakers that need a sub and have uneven directivity? What is a decent listening level? Are we expecting a little bookshelf to pump out 100dbs to 50hz?

 

[Bruce Morgen]

I have not been impressed by the budget class D offerings that have been measured.

How broad is your experience in that regard? The TI document I supplied gives a decent idea of what one of the best Class D chips can do. Given a competent implementation -- not a very challenging engineering task AFAICT -- I suspect the result would be fairly inexpensive to manufacture offshore and pretty much measure up to what the chip itself can do, since low-distortion op amps have been available for decades and the good quality capacitors and inductors required aren't particularly high-cost components. I'm not saying such a product is easy to find via Amazon or AliExpress, I'm saying it's hypothetically feasible -- and the design basics have already been demonstrated in the manufacturer's evaluation board.

 

[Koeitje]

So there are no expensive bookshelf speakers that need a sub and have uneven directivity? What is a decent listening level? Are we expecting a little bookshelf to pump out 100dbs to 50hz?

Sure there are, but I'd argue the percentage of expensive bookshelf speakers that need a sub is lower than the percentage of $100 a pair bookshelves that need a sub. If you spend $400 a pair you should be able to easily get speakers that do everything I'm saying. But according to you that is already expensive.

As for SPL: average 85dB full range at listening position with 105dB peaks. You know...standard THX mixing reference levels, nothing special.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

well, to someone that only has a hundred bucks, four hundred is expensive.

I'm not trying to suggest that these cheap speakers are objectively good. I'm just responding to the dismissive "cheap speakers suck...news at 11" mentality. There actually are some good budget speakers out there and I think it's worthwhile identifying them. I also think it's worthwhile emphasizing the fact that more money doesn't always equal better sound. To me, speakers are sort of the last bastion of open audiophoolery. It's the area where even staunch objectivists still often fall prey to subjective nonsense. I don't believe there's quite as much separating speakers as a lot of people think there is. I'm no more or less surprised by expensive speakers measuring poorly than I am by cheap speakers measuring well...

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

@bobbooo

I doubt that the formula correctly reflects reality, nor that of SINAD with amplification. Unfortunately the reality is too complex.

lol. perhaps you'd like to present the reams of evidence you have that contradicts the years and years of research that have led to "the formula."

 

[Koeitje]

well, to someone that only has a hundred bucks, four hundred is expensive.

I'm not trying to suggest that these cheap speakers are objectively good. I'm just responding to the dismissive "cheap speakers suck...news at 11" mentality. There actually are some good budget speakers out there and I think it's worthwhile identifying them. I also think it's worthwhile emphasizing the fact that more money doesn't always equal better sound. To me, speakers are sort of the last bastion of open audiophoolery. It's the area where even staunch objectivists still often fall prey to subjective nonsense. I don't believe there's quite as much separating speakers as a lot of people think there is. I'm no more or less surprised by expensive speakers measuring poorly than I am by cheap speakers measuring well...

So what, $100 can be expensive for somebody that doesn't have that. So a $50 a pair speaker can be good? What kind of nonsense is that? You were just arguing price had no correlation with performance, so why stop at $100 a pair? Lets go cheaper.

I am a pure objectivist. Speakers like your Micca don't meet basic objective standards and thus should not be regarded as good. If there is a cheap speaker that hits all objective standards I will be all over it, but I do not see it happening simply due to the cost of the basic materials needed.