Dayton Audio B652-AIR Speaker Review

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

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.

How can you even begin to think what you just typed has any relevance to what is being discussed here? Your totally subjective impression that changing a capacitor caused a "spectacular" sound improvement is somehow evidence that decades of research in the field of speaker preference is erroneous? Huh?

 

[bobbooo]

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.

If you actually did measure the frequency, impedance and phase response before and after and found no change, what you're experiencing is 100% expectation bias. But you don't need to take my word for this, you can prove it to yourself relatively easily by doing a double-blind listening test with the help of a friend. You'll need two coins, some post-it notes, and a blindfold (nothing kinky, don't worry).

1. If you use the speakers with stands, place one of the stands in front of your listening position. If not, place a marker in the form of a blank post-it note in the middle of where you usually place the speakers (e.g. on a desk/cabinet).
2. Change one of the speakers back to the original state you bought it in, without your friend seeing which one, and stick one post-it note with a square drawn on it to the bottom of the original speaker, and another note with a triangle on it to the one you modified. Tell your friend to make sure the notes stay on, but obviously don't tell them what the symbols mean.
3. Write down the meaning of each symbol for this trial just for yourself (this is important).
4. Leave both speakers next to each other, and tell your friend to flip a coin after you walk out of the room and shut the door - heads they connect up the speaker that's on their left to the left channel of your source, and place it on the stand / desk marker; tails they choose the speaker on their right, and connect it to the same source channel (left), and put it in the same place.
5. While out of the room, blindfold yourself so your vision is completely obscured (in case there are slight visual differences in the speaker cabinets), then call your friend to guide you to your listening position in the other room.
6. Instruct your friend to play your favourite music. Listen for as long as you want, then once you've decided which speaker you think it is, tell your friend to write this down ('original' or 'modified') under 'guess' for this trial.
7. Tell your friend to disconnect the speaker, get them to check what symbol is written on the note underneath it, then they should write this symbol next to the guess for this trial they wrote down in the previous step.
8. Take off your blindfold and tell your friend to go out of the room and shut the door.
9. Flip a coin - if it's heads, keep the post-it notes as they are; if it's tails, swap them.
10. Repeat steps 3-7 nine times. This is very important, as we need to be statistically confident you are definitely able to distinguish which speaker is which - too few trials, and they could have just been lucky guesses.
11. Once you've done all ten trials, decode the symbols on your friend's results list using your symbol meaning 'key' for each trial from step 3, then count up how many times you guessed correctly.

If, as you claim, the sound improvement of the modified speaker is "spectacular", you should easily be able to distinguish it from the original in all ten trials, and this will be the beginning of a whole new revolutionary paradigm for physics and psychoacoustics. If not, then you've learnt a valuable lesson about the scientific method and the power of expectation bias. Win-win.

 

[Sancus]

If, as you claim, the sound improvement of the modified speaker is "spectacular", you should easily be able to distinguish it from the original in all ten trials, and this will be the beginning of a whole new paradigm for physics and psychoacoustics. If not, then you've learnt a valuable lesson about the scientific method and the power of expectation bias. Win-win.

This all sounds like a huge amount of work. I believe it's easier and more pleasurable to just spam non-sequitur posts in forum threads

 

[Bruce Morgen]

How can you even begin to think what you just typed has any relevance to what is being discussed here? Your totally subjective impression that changing a capacitor caused a "spectacular" sound improvement is somehow evidence that decades of research in the field of speaker preference is erroneous? Huh?

The subjectivist madness gets even more extreme, e.g. speaker designer Danny Richie of GR Research in Texas USA claims his little "tube connectors" -- which he sells for $59/pair -- will result in a significant audible improvement over conventional binding posts, even when installed on inexpensive mass market bookshelf speakers. Seriously...

Electra Tube Connectors from GR Research

 

[maty]

I have spent the minimum for my second system because I planned to use it for testing and verification. The cost of the capacitor and the resistor is minimal, so anyone can try and verify if they notice the difference or not. First only one box to compare with the other. Always accompanied by the same person when making the modification and test.

If I write that it was spectacular it is because it was. I did not expect such a difference, I can not find the logic. Denying what I heard and heard would be illogical.

The key to everything is that the KEF 5.25" Uni-Q driver is very good and is limited by everything else. The yellow capacitor and the original resistor must be very bad.

That is why I am very grateful to Erin aka hardisj for the measurements he made few months before my purchase.

-> https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/kef-q100-drive-unit/

That the driver was so good I knew it before buying KEF Q100. I informed myself very well and spent time seven years ago. I even previously read Floyd Toole's book.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

lol. yeah. I'll buy that for a dollar!

 

[maty]

Very easy test. Even with a phone the difference is evident. Or with the speakers of the laptop.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Those clips show there is a subtle audible difference. They don't show that the difference won't up show in comprehensive testing a la a Klippel system or Harman's setup. They also don't show which component change(s) are crucial to that subtle difference, since every component in the crossover was changed in "one swell foop." . My money is on the (ferrous or ferrite core vs. air core?) inductors and (NP electrolytic vs. low-ESR film?) capacitors doing it, with the resistor swaps and "tube connectors" having zero audible or measurable effect. There is also no mention of the cost of the changes in parts and time-- the connectors alone cost $59/pair -- and no consideration of whether the the time and expenditure involved makes a lick of sense in comparison to simply upgrading to better speakers

 

[maty]

Those clips show there is a subtle audible difference. They don't show that the difference won't up show in comprehensive testing a la a Klippel system or Harman's setup...

Then you have a bottleneck in your system, more probably in the O.S. The difference is very noticeable for many even from basic systems.

You can improve, in addition to cleaning, the contact of the binding posts with the wiring without spending money, my case. I would buy new ones but logic dictates that I would also have to change them in the amplifier. As I am waiting to choose a new amplifier I tried one thing and it worked very appreciably. As I live in Europe, I have selected others.

The next logical step, in my case, would be to change the yellow capacitors and verify if the sound a little better with others.

Step by Step.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Then you have a bottleneck in your system, more probably in the O.S. The difference is very noticeable for many even from basic systems.

You can improve, in addition to cleaning, the contact of the binding posts with the wiring without spending money, my case. I would buy new ones but logic dictates that I would also have to change them in the amplifier. As I am waiting to choose a new amplifier I tried one thing and it worked very appreciably. As I live in Europe, I have selected others.

The next logical step, in my case, would be to change the yellow capacitors and verify if the sound a little better with others.

Step by Step.

Your reply makes no logical or technical sense in the context of what I wrote.

 

[maty]

In the Daytons it is not worth spending money on the components. Better to change the frequency response from a good minimum phase equalizer.

-> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inimum-phase-vs-linear-phase.8762/post-253826

In my speakers, knowing that the KEF 5.25" Uni-Q coaxial driver is excellent and there are few components in the crossover is more logical to try.

-> https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/kef-q100-drive-unit/

 

[Sancus]

Your reply makes no logical or technical sense in the context of what I wrote.

Don't encourage him.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Don't encourage him.

 

[tuga]

The vizio amp has just 5 watts! That's not g

Sure. They have independent parameters though (although share the gating setting). Here is a view:

View attachment 50006

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).

Those colours do not produce a clear representation.
Could you try this colour scheme instead?

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Even the smaller, boxier-sounding B-452 AIRs are OK for TV given a modest subwoofer -- but for long-term music listening, neither really cuts the mustard for me, which is why my (modestly modded) B-652 AIRs have been relegated to a surround role at my music listening position, where they do a decent enough job. Of course, the Pioneers would be a good deal better, but being rear-ported they'd present bit of a positioning challenge in my particular 4.1 nearfield+surround setup.

Well, I definitely must have tin ears. I use 6 of these for Home Theater setup in our summer camp in the Adirondacks. Two pairs stacked for L and R , AMT' s in the center (top of the pair upside down). Driven bi-amped with an Onkyo TX-RZ720. A third pair, series , for the center wttw horiz. 'Room EQ'ed ' with the built-in Onkyo thing..

Now this is never used for 'serious listening' - do that only on HP, LG V20, Liquid Spark, HE400i.

But for TV, the family loves it!

I have to admit, I am sorely, sorely tempted to buy a dsp-408 for $149, take the L and R pairs, rip out the 'crossovers' , drive each of the 4 tweeters and woofers independently, create a proper crossover for each, and PEQ each..Then ship 'em (one pair anyway and the 408) to @amirm

 

[escape2]

I mention this only in passing... but the nice folks at PE have an only a bit more expensive cheap loudspeaker that they (at least) seem to think highly of Perhaps (????) worthy of attention.
No AMT, either.

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-mk402x-4-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-465.

These are currently my front L/R speakers in my little HT setup. The MK402X is an upgraded version of the original MK402. The main complaint of the MK402 was elevated treble. Dayton actually listened and gave them a better crossover to make them sound more neutral, which is what the MK402X is.

Crossed over at 100 Hz, they're actually decent sounding, but being 4 Ohm and low sensitivity (84 dB), they require more power than some other speakers. They also can't play super loud, but they can fill a smaller room no problem. However, if you let them play full range (not crossed over), port noise becomes an issue at higher volumes.

All in all, not bad at this price, but obviously a 4" woofer has its limitations, no matter how much excursion you allow it to have.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

...obviously a 4" woofer has its limitations, no matter how much excursion you allow it to have.

Interestingly, Bruno Putzeys -- of Purifi and Kii Audio and formerly the main guy at Hypex -- seems to have to a large extent solved the small long excursion woofer problem as per a Purifi white paper. Of course you're not going to find that technology in a low-cost bookshelf system, but his discoveries -- which emphasize a very unconventional approach to woofer surround design -- seem to have some potential for putting to rest the long standing "go big or go home" wisdom regarding high SPL, low-distortion woofer performance. AFAICT, Purifi is offering only one 6.5" woofer implementing those ideas -- I have yet to encounter any finished products incorporating that component, but combined with a first-rate tweeter and an appropriately sophisticated crossover, I think it has tremendous potential in a compact 2-way bookshelf system.

Purifi PTT6.5W04 description and specs

 

[thewas]

The Purifi is a great woofer but at times of Klippel driver optimisation its not the only one that has very good linearity at significant stroke.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

These things work fine as surround speakers (to add a little sense of spaciousness in my 4.1 desktop setup) after putting a 2 ohm resistor in series between the existing resistor and the tweeter -- and while I was doing that, I noticed that the tweeter polarity reversal idea that ZeroFidelity tried now seems to be the stock wiring. Aside from that, WTF can one reasonably expect from a $42 pair of speakers? They're certainly much better than any "computer speaker system" (e.g. Logitech) I've encountered -- and they're less than half the street price of those admittedly better Pioneers.

Just to update on what's going on with my setup -- I just replaced the Daytons with a pair of second-hand JBL 2500s I picked up locally for $20 and the difference, even in the comparatively undemanding surround role, is absolutely stunning. These front-ported JBLs are smaller but a bit heavier than the B652-AIRs, with 5.25 inch woofers, "pure titanium" dome tweeters, and crossovers that are only slightly more sophisticated, the one addition to the parts list being a low-pass inductor in series with the woofer. The overall clarity of the entire system has improved immensely -- there's no longer any trade-off whatsoever between blending in the surround speakers for that sense of spaciousness I love and hearing the smallest detail in the music. The bottom line is that -- even when size limitations and target price point are big considerations -- when taken together, proper driver and circuit design, solid enclosure construction, and the thorough pre-production testing for which the Harman brands are rightly famous amount to a huge performance advantage over throwing a bunch of bargain basement off-the-shelf components into a cheap sealed box a la Dayton.

 

[AnalogSteph]

The Purifi is a great woofer but at times of Klippel driver optimisation its not the only one that has very good linearity at significant stroke.

Now look at the 4" they're working on. Linear Xmax +/-10 mm in a driver this size (last time I looked, I struggled to find more than +/-4), and presumably with Bl linearity similar to the 6.5"? This guy is going to be interesting.