Dayton Audio B652-AIR Speaker Review

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

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.

i disagree. Based on the measurements here, my $150 RB42s could very conceivably beat the $1500 Kefs in a blind test with or without a sub. I'm happy with that fidelity for the price.

Noaudiophile has done dsp corrections on the cheaper Micca MB42x that has them +/-3dbs to below 50hz. pretty good performance...rivaling considerably more expensive speakers.


I'm not arguing price has no correlation with performance. I'm arguing that the correlation isn't perfect. Of course, the cheaper you go, the less likely you get anything good. These Dayton's are probably at the lower limit and again I'm not arguing that they are really much good.

 

[Koeitje]

i disagree. Based on the measurements here, my $150 RB42s could very conceivably beat the $1500 Kefs in a blind test with or without a sub. I'm happy with that fidelity for the price.

Noaudiophile has done dsp corrections on the cheaper Micca MB42x that has them +/-3dbs to below 50hz. pretty good performance...rivaling considerably more expensive speakers.


I'm not arguing price has no correlation with performance. I'm arguing that the correlation isn't perfect. Of course, the cheaper you go, the less likely you get anything good. These Dayton's are probably at the lower limit and again I'm not arguing that they are really much good.

You mean the Kef's that were designed around a flawed starting point?

DSP corrections only make the SPL more limited and makes the speaker break up even earlier. To do DSP corrections you need to have headroom to manage it. But if it does handle 105dB 50hz peaks at like 3 meters I'm impressed.

 

[napilopez]

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

Who are all these people listening at reference levels in their homes? Have you been to movie theater lately? 85 dB average + 20dB peaks at the LP is loud

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Who are all these people listening at reference levels in their homes? Have you been to movie theater lately? 85 dB average + 20dB peaks at the LP is loud

Exactly. Let's apply some reasonable parameters for judging a little speaker right? I mean in my apartment, anything approaching 80db avg SPL is too loud. I'm rarely over 75dbs at my listening position. And in my bedroom where the MB42xs are, even 70dbs avg is too loud.

 

[napilopez]

Exactly. Let's apply some reasonable parameters for judging a little speaker right? I mean in my apartment, anything approaching 80db avg SPL is too loud. I'm rarely over 75dbs at my listening position. And in my bedroom where the MB42xs are, even 70dbs avg is too loud.

Yeah, receivers run their calibrations at 75dB because 85dB is too loud for a home setting. In a home with a reasonably low noise floor, 65-75 dB average seems more reasonable, though I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find data on average SPL levels for home listening.

What I do know is that at no point do I ever want anything in my home to hit 105dB (nor the 115dB peaks for subs). For reference, a smoke alarm is normally set to bleep at around 85dB from 10 feet.

 

[bobbooo]

its a decent speaker

So not garbage then, got it. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Koeitje]

So not garbage then, got it. Thanks for proving my point.

The Dayton is much cheaper and is garbage, I wasn't referring to the Pioneer which costs at least twice as much and is designed by somebody who knows you have to spend a minimum amount of money (=my argument).

 

[bobbooo]

The Dayton is much cheaper and is garbage, I wasn't referring to the Pioneer which costs at least twice as much and is designed by somebody who knows you have to spend a minimum amount of money (=my argument).

Well that's a different point to your original comment, which is what the Pioneer disproves, as $59 for a speaker is most definitely still in the 'cheap' category, yet it's patently nowhere near 'garbage'.

Only around 6 speakers have been tested so far in that price bracket, so there may well be many more like the Pioneer, maybe even cheaper and with better performance. Assuming otherwise without the data is just pricing bias, which has plagued the 'audiophile' community for decades.

 

[maltux]

Don't want to make anyone jealous of our spare room setup but...

I bought them for less than $30 at Parts express. I installed an internal brace and made $10 crossovers. They are powered by a very cheap Lepai amplifier.

Hey - they sound better than the TV speaker and a fun little project.

Would I ever recommend them? ummmm NO!

 

[Sancus]

What I do know is that at no point do I ever want anything in my home to hit 105dB (nor the 115dB peaks for subs). For reference, a smoke alarm is normally set to bleep at around 85dB from 10 feet.

You're totally missing out

More seriously yeah that's pretty much my experience. Normal listening volume is -10db to -15db. I do sometimes turn it up to full 85db, but not that often. It's sometimes enjoyable with movies that have a large dynamic range for impact on explosions and such. Rarely with certain types of music.

I do use the Denon dynamic EQ though and consider it indispensable for bass to sound good at these lower volumes.

 

[Cahudson42]

Looks like the right price level for use with the Dayton's. Note 'jbl' on circuit board:
Adjustable Treble Bass 2 Way Audio Frequency Divider Speaker Crossover Filters https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07QMFVT7M/

 

[napilopez]

You're totally missing out

More seriously yeah that's pretty much my experience. Normal listening volume is -10db to -15db. I do sometimes turn it up to full 85db, but not that often. It's sometimes enjoyable with movies that have a large dynamic range for impact on explosions and such. Rarely with certain types of music.

I do use the Denon dynamic EQ though and consider it indispensable for bass to sound good at these lower volumes.

Haha I do actually my preferred listening levels every week or two when I'm testing speakers, but yeah -15 seems to be the comfort zone for me for good dynamics without getting annoying or worrying about bothering the neighbors too much.

 

[bobbooo]

@bobbooo

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

Although obviously not perfect, the formula produces predicted preference ratings that have a high 0.86 correlation (1 being perfect) with actual preference ratings. Statistical analysis concluded the calculated ratings have a residual error of ±0.8 from actual ratings. Details are on page 11 of Dr. Sean Olive's AES paper A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II - Development of the Model (scroll down for the correct paper), which has as its foundation decades of solid scientific research in the field by leading experts in psychoacoustics. Well worth a read.

@MZKM maybe you could add this ±0.8 next to each preference rating you post, to make it clear to everyone how accurate the predictions are.

 

[MZKM]

maybe you could add this ±0.8 next to each preference rating you post, to make it clear to everyone how accurate the predictions are.

That’s going to be the average deviation, their own publication shows one speaker was rated a ~2 yet the formula churned out a ~5.75.

 

[Sancus]

Does it make sense to calculate and display the preference rating to two decimal places? I feel like it might imply a level of accuracy that doesn't exist.

 

[bobbooo]

That’s going to be the average deviation, their own publication shows one speaker was rated a ~2 yet the formula churned out a ~5.75.

Yes I'm aware it's an average, that's just the standard way to show residual error. If you don't think people will get this you could just write '±0.8 average error' to be clear.

 

[sweetchaos]

Does it make sense to calculate and display the preference rating to two decimal places? I feel like it might imply a level of accuracy that doesn't exist.

Amir has asked @MZKM to show 1 decimal place everywhere on ASR, and that works for the purpose of discussion on ASR.
@MZKM is showing 2 decimal places in his Google Sheets in order to get a more accurate picture, for people who want that level of detail.
This strategy satisfies both parties.

Personally, I'm not a fan of rounding to 1 decimal. I guess my studies always drilled the concept of proper decimal places and the errors of not having enough decimal places.

 

[bobbooo]

Does it make sense to calculate and display the preference rating to two decimal places? I feel like it might imply a level of accuracy that doesn't exist.

I tend to agree in terms of displaying (not calculating) the ratings - there shouldn't be more decimal places to the final score than to its error value. Maybe a good compromise would be to have 1 decimal place on the ranking tables, and show the score with 2 decimal places somewhere in the link after you click on each individual speaker, just for the numberphiles out there.

 

[Sancus]

Personally, I'm not a fan of rounding to 1 decimal. I guess my studies always drilled the concept of proper decimal places and the errors of not having enough decimal places.

Yes, but "proper decimal places" is inextricably linked with the precision of a measurement. You cannot calculate and display decimal places if your formula doesn't have enough precision to justify it.

That's why it's a standard rule in science when taking measurements that the last digit should be the uncertain one, and you should never add more decimal places that you are uncertain about than 1.

 

[maty]

On the formula, I give an example, my KEF Q100 5.25" coaxials. Weeks ago I changed in the tweeter first order filter the cheap NOS styroflex capacitor that acted as a bypass (added by me) by other and the resistor. The sound improvement was spectacular and it sure has not changed the frequency response or impedance /phase curve. If I had not made the change it would cost me a lot to believe it if someone else told me.