• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Do affordable far field dsp speakers exist?

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,661
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#22
How would you achieve that?
I don't know, but i know there are a lot of speakers with ports sans resonances.

Almost all speakers with a focus on music production have front ports so they can be pushed against the wall to minimize SBIR or to raise the SBIR frequency high enough so it can be absorbed. Or even better, make it possible to in wall mount the speakers.

We should aspire to that level of performance imo.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
2,634
Likes
3,395
Location
France
#24
Almost all speakers with a focus on music production have front ports so they can be pushed against the wall to minimize SBIR or to raise the SBIR frequency high enough so it can be absorbed.
Genelec disagrees, though. Rear ports have some major advantages: reducing resonance and woofer leakage (for 2-ways) audibility by virtue of not being direct sound without reducing the port efficiency with foam stuffing (as Neumann does on the KH120A) and allowing for more placement choice without increasing the baffle height to make space (Neumann's ports are quite space saving, though). You also get a bit more boundary gain when stuck to a wall.
Personally, I think both have their place in 3-way designs.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
2,634
Likes
3,395
Location
France
#26
All things in speaker design come with caveats and a absence of free luncheon.
Not all things, as KEF and Genelec proved by refining the coaxial concept to get beyond its original issues and this imaginary "everything is a compromise (of equal magnitude implied)". I'm sorry if you meant it in a more reasonable way (i.e. some things in loudspeaker design are a compromise and/or not fit for every use case), but this phrase sounds like something you could read in Sokal & Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense.
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,661
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#28
Wouldn't it actually be +6dB? (3dB from doubling the amplification and another 3dB for doubling the surface area of the transducers)
two signals of equal frequency, amplitude and phase add up to +3dB (on sound pressure/Speaker level).

on voltage/analog level it's 6 dB.

As far as i know.
 

Beershaun

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
835
Likes
768
#29
I wish the KEF R3 wasn't rear ported, infact i wish no speaker in the world would be rear ported for home cinema purposes.
I wish no bookshelf speaker was ported. They all need subwoofers. Porting a small speaker is,IMHO, a hack that adds distortion in exchange for marketing claims of lower frequency extension.

But on topic. The problem as others have said is surround processing and room correction requires a central processing system and at that point it's much cheaper to add central amps for the surround speakers than powered individual speakers due to the sheer number of speakers you need for surround and Atmos setups.
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,661
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#30
I wish no bookshelf speaker was ported. They all need subwoofers. Porting a small speaker is,IMHO, a hack that adds distortion in exchange for marketing claims of lower frequency extension.
i don't know what difference does it make if the speaker/drivers were larger, port distortion occurs either way.
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,661
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#32
Genelec disagrees, though. Rear ports have some major advantages: reducing resonance and woofer leakage (for 2-ways) audibility by virtue of not being direct sound without reducing the port efficiency with foam stuffing (as Neumann does on the KH120A) and allowing for more placement choice without increasing the baffle height to make space (Neumann's ports are quite space saving, though). You also get a bit more boundary gain when stuck to a wall.
Personally, I think both have their place in 3-way designs.
I think Genelec is trying very hard to minimize the size of their speakers as well.

I just would rather have a front ported speaker than a rear ported speaker if they both performed well.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
2,634
Likes
3,395
Location
France
#33
I wish no bookshelf speaker was ported. They all need subwoofers. Porting a small speaker is,IMHO, a hack that adds distortion
But porting reduces distortion when everything else (especially extension) is equal, that's the entire point. The problem is the same whether it's sealed or ported: don't try to push extension via EQ too much. The Genelec 8341A/8351B reviews here show extremey good distortion values, and these are arguably "small" ported speakers.
 

Beershaun

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
835
Likes
768
#34
I am definitely interested in learning what the requirements are for a good performing surround sound and in-wall/ceiling speaker for Atmos duty would be. And which speakers meet that for the least amount. I definitely want to find the budget sweet spot if I have to buy 16 channels worth of speakers for a modern home theater setup.
 
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
3
#35
I wish no bookshelf speaker was ported. They all need subwoofers. Porting a small speaker is,IMHO, a hack that adds distortion in exchange for marketing claims of lower frequency extension.
There are other major advantages to porting beyond low hz extension. It makes the speaker MUCH more efficient. Also, the much greater air pressure (positive and negative) on the midrange/woofer can cause distortion and damping. I don't think it's marketing. I think it's just easier to design a good speaker with a port.

Though, I should qualify. I have unported bookshelves with a sub myself :) But I'm thinking of jumping to a Genelec or maybe a revel or maybe an R3... or...
 

abdo123

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
1,934
Likes
1,661
Location
Brussels, Belgium
#36
But porting reduces distortion when everything else (especially extension) is equal, that's the entire point. The problem is the same whether it's sealed or ported: don't try to push extension via EQ too much. The Genelec 8341A/8351B reviews here show extremey good distortion values, and these are arguably "small" ported speakers.
I feel like using Genelec speakers as an example is a little unfair because i seriously consider them an outlier. they're the exception not just in the distortion category but pretty much all categories, they're the expensive luncheon brand basically.
 

Beershaun

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
835
Likes
768
#37
But porting reduces distortion when everything else (especially extension) is equal, that's the entire point. The problem is the same whether it's sealed or ported: don't try to push extension via EQ too much. The Genelec 8341A/8351B reviews here show extremey good distortion values, and these are arguably "small" ported speakers.
Yes. For $3k each you get a great performing ported speaker. The majority of tested bookshelf speakers with ports resonate causing mid range distortion reducing performance in a critical area of their performance window. A more cost effective solution for $6k would be to get a nice sub and cross the small speakers over and let the sub do the low work.
 

q3cpma

Major Contributor
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
2,634
Likes
3,395
Location
France
#38
Yes. For $3k each you get a great performing ported speaker. The majority of tested bookshelf speakers with ports resonate causing mid range distortion reducing performance in a critical area of their performance window. A more cost effective solution for $6k would be to get a nice sub and cross the small speakers over and let the sub do the low work.
How about the aforementioned Kef R3?
I feel like using Genelec speakers as an example is a little unfair because i seriously consider them an outlier. they're the exception not just in the distortion category but pretty much all categories, they're the expensive luncheon brand basically.
The real "cheating" comes from using a 3-way speaker with sealed midrange chamber as example, but the smaller 2-way Genelec and Neumann offerings also show that it can be done with enough R&D. That's basically my position: porting is an extremely useful tool, but not always easy to implement without side effects.
 

Beershaun

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
835
Likes
768
#39
How about the aforementioned Kef R3?

The real "cheating" comes from using a 3-way speaker with sealed midrange chamber as example, but the smaller 2-way Genelec and Neumann offerings also show that it can be done with enough R&D. That's basically my position: porting is an extremely useful tool, but not always easy to implement without side effects.
Right agreed. Kef r3 is $2k a pair and goes down to 52hz and is very high performing. For that same money you can design a 2.1 setup with a sub and get down to 25hz with great performance and be much happier due to the importance of low bass to preference scores.
 

Beershaun

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
835
Likes
768
#40
I don't want to hijack this thread from the op. I think affordable far field really means incorporating a powered subwoofer and finding speakers that perform very linearly but at a higher low frequency response cutoff.
 
Top Bottom