• 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?

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,357
Likes
4,607
#61
Take a look at the Mesanovic MT10 for $6,000 for an all in one solution. It has similar extension to the 8C(23Hz vs 20Hz), and a smoother spinorama measurement. It's rated a bit higher than the 8C by the Olive score(7.6 vs 7.3), though it doesn't do the LF directivity control.

Smaller bookshelf + sub would be my recommendation though if you're confident with DSP integrating subwoofers.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
3,357
Likes
4,607
#62
What about Philharmonic BMR tower? 25Hz -3dB and sealed so should dig super deep in room. I think price is around $3,200 iirc. They also come in some (imo) gorgeous finishes.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,249
Likes
3,173
#63
Hi

I have glanced through the thread and no mention has been made of the JBL 708. It is however on the not cheap side of most people budget but .. remains a sensible choice IMO for $3600 the pair... It can play loud in the far field with ease but ... I am with @abdo123, on this: Subwoofers are mandatory in Home Cinema. I would go further and say that proper music reproduction, in most cases, require subwoofers, plural... even with speakers with substantial low frequency output.

In a relatively small , dedicated concrete room of 4.8 x 3.2 x 2.8 meters, 16 x10 x 9 ft (L x W x H). I get very good results with the JBL LSR 308 with o course a pair of subwoofers. I need to measure it after Audyssey but am satisfied so far, with all kind of music and movies.
I can tell when the system is pushed to its limit on music. MLP at 10 feet/3 m from the plane of the front speakers, on music >93 dB is not recommended. I don't go much above 95 dB anyway on music. On movies, the video dominates and I've found myself enjoying peaks in the 100 dB. I would say for music if you stay below 90 dB at 10 ft the LSR 308 would work with subwoofers. Plural.
The LSR 308 is not an endgame speaker, at $250 each, that would be unrealistic but with subwoofers and in a medium enclosed room, it will surprise many. I have the suspicion that its brother, the 708 could be my endgame speaker for years to come :)
 

AudioJester

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
302
Likes
297
#64
I have had a pair of Phantoms for around 6 years now and like everything about them apart from needing an app to control volume, I have them connected to my streaming and home file library, a TV and a CD transport.
I don't use them as much as my conventional system since i don't stream much. I don't know how they would get on in a HT system but lack of loudness is unlikely to be a problem.
The Cabasse Pearl is another similar type of product which may well be better.
Trying to figure out where Devialet fits into the audioscape. Their amps look sensational, but measured performance suggests overpriced and overhyped. Yet people I have a lot of respect for almost universally praise the Phantoms.
 

Jim Matthews

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Messages
416
Likes
456
Location
Taxachusetts
#65
I have glanced through the thread and no mention has been made of the JBL 708. It is however on the not cheap side of most people budget but .. remains a sensible choice IMO for $3600 the pair... It can play loud in the far field with ease but ... I have the suspicion that its brother, the 708 could be my endgame speaker for years to come :)
I use mine in the manner you describe - about 4m (13+ feet) from my listening chair with subs up to 150 Hz. Crossover handled before amplification while the signal is still digitized.

After years fiddling with tubes and high sensitivity drivers I'm getting what I asked for - decent sound, and simple operation at a reasonable price.

Watch the JBL sale page for temporary price drops.

(FYI - their AES input is what convinced me)
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
2,249
Likes
3,173
#68
Those are definitely above the price range.
I'm looking for something around the price of jbl 308s or Kali lp8s or In8s.
But willing to go a bit higher if needed.
When one speaker is thousands of dollars, I'm out.
I could do it, but then I would need to get divorced first lol.
I wish there was something in between the 308s and the 708s, made just for home theater listening
Didn’t notice this particular post. What’s your budget?
 

infinitesymphony

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
965
Likes
1,497
#70
Around 200-300 per speaker
AFAIK there are no full-range high-SPL speakers with DSP in that price range. Otherwise we would all have them. :)

In this entry-level price range you're better off handling the DSP elsewhere (e.g. in software with Sonarworks or Equalizer APO, an AVR, a MiniDSP SHD, a Qudelix-5K) depending on your needs.

The JBL LSR308P MkIIs may be suitable if you use them with a subwoofer to free up bandwidth. What kind of SPL are you hoping to achieve? If you encounter a system that gets to the volume you want, use your phone with a SPL meter app to take a reading.
 
OP
G
Joined
May 7, 2021
Messages
16
Likes
5
Thread Starter #71
Thank you for the reply.
I have decided that the idea of dsp speakers is better than the reality of it for my check book.
PA speakers are too much sound for a home theater, studio monitors are not enough, at least at what I am willing to spend.
I planned on using the subs that are already set up for my ht, but I will just continue using my passive crossover speakers.
Blame Floyd Toole for putting these ideas of powered speakers in my head lol.
But I think he did mention that the speaker companies either haven't caught on, or it would just be too costly to mass produce them.
 

infinitesymphony

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
965
Likes
1,497
#72
But I think he did mention that the speaker companies either haven't caught on, or it would just be too costly to mass produce them.
Developing speakers with DSP requires the creation and maintenance of a calibration ecosystem including microphone setups and I/O, software tuning applications, mobile apps, and ongoing maintenance updates. With that kind of R&D expense, even though it would likely not cost JBL much additional money to add DSP to the 3 series, they might risk cannibalizing sales of the 7 series. Gotta keep the products stratified.

Practically speaking, unless you're working in a studio, most AVRs with calibration can either get you within the ballpark themselves or accept EQ settings you create using external tools and that setup will probably be good enough for home theater.
 
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
3
#73
The speaker is made more efficient only at frequency very close to the tuning frequency of the port (which is a resonance, by the way). And this is not a separate advantage from the supposed advantage of bass extension - it is the same advantage, because the increase in efficiency in this narrow frequency range is the reason that the -3 dB point moves lower in frequency. Whether this is truly a low bass extension depends on how you define low bass extension; if you define it using the -10 dB point instead of the -3 dB point, the port does not improve the low bass extension. I'm not really sure exactly what you mean when you say that the "much greater air pressure .. on the midrange/woofer can cause distortion and damping."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but won't a box with a hole in it have less back pressure for the woofer for any movement it makes vs a closed box? So that'd make it more efficient and probably reduce distortion across its range. And then it would also gain the efficiency you're describing within the range of port frequencies.
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
5,467
Likes
12,199
Location
Oxfordshire
#74
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but won't a box with a hole in it have less back pressure for the woofer for any movement it makes vs a closed box? So that'd make it more efficient and probably reduce distortion across its range. And then it would also gain the efficiency you're describing within the range of port frequencies.
Depends on frequency and box size, it is a dynamic system not static.
The HiFi world is blighted by the application of static logic to dynamic systems and getting an inappropriate conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
3
#75
Depends on frequency and box size, it is a dynamic system not static.
The HiFi world is blighted by the application of static logic to dynamic systems and getting an inappropriate conclusion.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by static logic in this case. A box with a port does have a hole in it. That port resonates at a fairly narrow range of frequencies. But if the woofer is moving at other frequencies, air still moves back and forth through the port. It just doesn't resonate. I don't see how that's static logic. The woofer is moving and the air is moving. If you plug up the port, then the woofer will create more pressure as it moves back than it would if there were no hole. No? And you need more force to create that pressure, which, you'd figure, would require more power for the same movement of the woofer = lower efficiency. Of course, a bigger box means the pressure differential ported vs not is smaller. Tower speakers are generally more efficient for that reason I think. But my comment was really about bookshelf types with little boxes like Genelecs.
 
Top Bottom