Focals look amazing, but my wife would kill me, expensive.
The one from Dynaudio was on expensive side too. Other than economics, that would be good solution.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Dynaudio LYD 5 Studio Monitor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Focals look amazing, but my wife would kill me, expensive.
The one from Dynaudio was on expensive side too. Other than economics, that would be good solution.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Focals look amazing, but my wife would kill me, expensive.
Other than economics, that would be good solution.
LSR308?
Get that 8" wub wub at a budget price.
JBL goes down to 37Hz, and yeah the price is nice. However, my speakers do have extension to 40Hz and it is clean base, no boominess. Paradigm claims 30Hz extension but that's nonsense. Switching to 308 would be a downgrade most likely from what I already have.
Kyle / MrHeeHo
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2018
- Messages
- 163
- Likes
- 183
Are the Neumann KH310s too expensive for you?Focals look amazing, but my wife would kill me, expensive.
Other than economics, that would be good solution.
The cutoff is $2000 per pair, KH310s are about $4400 per pair.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
If you already have extension to 40 Hz in a desktop studio monitor, how much more are you really hoping to realistically get?
37 Hz vs 40 Hz is practically no difference in real life.
And, depending on music genre, it may not even be necessary for mixing.
Maiky76
Senior Member
Why not?
Do you have any hard evidence to back up your assertion?
As a matter of fact the first Olive score was derived from a population of bookshelf speakers.
A speaker with a 5inch + 1inch look very much like a normal bookshelf speaker to me.
A Revel M105, as an example, uses similar ingredients,
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
There was no assertion.
The statement was "I'm not sure".
Why?
Because I haven't seen evidence that the Olive score was tested in nearfield desktop or monitoring bridge-specific scenarios.
The direct vs reverberant fields are different, plus you have desk reflections.
This might lead to different scoring outcomes and listener preferences.
Maiky76
Senior Member
Point taken,
The score is derived from anechoic data and calculated in the context of a regular domestic environment.
From that point of view it is perfectly valid to calculate the score for the LYD 5 in that context.
I don't see any particular design principle used that would provide advantages in the context of DAW/Desk configuration other than minimizing the distance between the drivers, nothing is really done to control the vertical directivity and mitigate for desk refection as an example.
The vertical directivity of the LYD5 is actually pretty poor you really need to aim them at one's ears and stay put or one would experience significant tonal shifts.
The Listening Window and the Early Reflections (that includes the desk reflection) may well be even more important for a near filed studio monitor than for a Consumer speaker.
It is certainly not better than a carefully design consumer speaker.
The score is derived from anechoic data and calculated in the context of a regular domestic environment.
From that point of view it is perfectly valid to calculate the score for the LYD 5 in that context.
I don't see any particular design principle used that would provide advantages in the context of DAW/Desk configuration other than minimizing the distance between the drivers, nothing is really done to control the vertical directivity and mitigate for desk refection as an example.
The vertical directivity of the LYD5 is actually pretty poor you really need to aim them at one's ears and stay put or one would experience significant tonal shifts.
The Listening Window and the Early Reflections (that includes the desk reflection) may well be even more important for a near filed studio monitor than for a Consumer speaker.
It is certainly not better than a carefully design consumer speaker.
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
Yeah, but in practice, when I'm mixing, that's exactly what I do.
I'm sitting at the DAW, at a fixed location, at a fixed height.
I don't find it to be an issue, in real life.
Especially since I can't hear to 20kHz (how many on here can?), the extreme lobing of the pink lines for 20 kHz on the polar graph in a range I can't hear.
If I was trying to use them as midfield mastering monitors, I might feel differently.
But I'd buy different speakers for that task.
Ohh, I'm satisfied with the extension I got, but would not complain about low 30's, anything between 36Hz -40Hz is fine really.
While my speakers are nice and sound good, wanted something better, the upgrade bug, after about 8 years together. They were about $530 for a pair, figuring that couple of grand should buy even better sound. Ohh, I mentioned in a post before, I will not be doing any mixing, purely for listening.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Howdy, you seem to be misunderstanding something big here. That poster was referring to near-field vs far-field and that has nothing to with the speaker size. The room reflections and thus the wall reflection qualities and predicted in room response is very different in many near-field vs far-field scenarios.
It would therefore make sense to ponder whether the Olive score which was derived in a far-field environment translates to the near-field. It may translate very well and it may not.
I have hear in other discussions of this that folks have found they prefer a different house curve near-field vs far, but I don't know. I do not listen very much near-field.
Kyle / MrHeeHo
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2018
- Messages
- 163
- Likes
- 183
that's fair, maybe go look to see what you can get secondhand if you're willing to do so
But this is off topic
If you want "cheap" bass, you're going to need a big woofer and a big amplifier (unlike the LSR308's). Behringer's B2031A is a classic, there's Mackie's HR824 and Kali's IN-8. Though I'd spend 2~3 times as much, as this is what's needed to really get to the next technological level.
KaiserSoze
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Messages
- 699
- Likes
- 592
watchnerd
Grand Contributor
I'd rather see the opposite -- more $2k+ monitors and larger format monitors.
All of the 5" monitors mentioned are competent and will do the job. A lot of the decision comes down to preferences for a certain type of sound or feature set.
None of them break the laws of physics and give you high SPLs with deep bass.
Well, you can say that they're all 5" monitors and stop here, but just compare this Dynaudio with the 8030C in LF extension and distorsion (at all frequencies, not just LF) to see that there's some discussion to be had.
Personally, I'd like to see the KH120A too, but nothing really interesting after that.
The Focal Shape series is interesting because it has passive radiators where all of its competitors have ports.. it'd be cool to see a different approach to boosting bass in the size class. 8030/KH80 bass performance only look good on paper and both are very disappointing in practice. IMD test would have been really interesting. Is the Dynaudio better (because of HPF) or worse (because of crossover at 5khz)? etc.
It's not uninteresting, but the Focals are a very unremarkable example to see that (https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/focal-shape-65-studiomonitore-im-test/) as linear distorsion is way too great for that price.
But the nearfield passive radiator response shows a very smooth decay, that only very well made ports can attain: browsing SAR's monitor reviews like the JBL 705p, Mackie XR824, Genelec 8350A and S360 shows that only the S360 is as clean/cleaner; the 8350A isn't, but the 400 Hz port artifact is low enough in amplitude to not be too grave (it actually fills a dip in the woofer response).
That's a singular opinion, I haven't heard of anybody (including me) having such problem with these.
Yes and no. The fact that the LYD-5 has basically an equal amount of harmonic distorsion at 86 dB that the Genelec has at 96 dB while having this low cut filter says it all; 10 dB headroom difference with the same woofer size, mate, that's just not in the same class. The Genelec also has a bass roll-off dip switch that brings it to 59 Hz F6, so you don't even need to bring out the software filters to get a more comparable LF extension.
But it'd be interesting to see the result of the multitone measurement with and without the filter (basically emulate a subwoofer presence).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
