Erin reviews GR-Research NX-Bravo

[Scrivs]

I’m sorry, but I find this a bit of needless pearl clutching.

I’ve been watching Erin’s channel from the beginning and have also in touch here and there with Erin about some of his reviews and goals, and his channel has been consistent with what he has told me. And what he’s been saying on his channel.

His goal isn’t to rate speakers just “good or bad.” His goal is to explain the character of any loudspeaker under review, and relate that to the measurements in a way that educates the audience.

That means that if he’s got a speaker that he himself would never buy, or that he didn’t care much for, he understands that other people may still like it, and that it’s most educational to simply try and convey the qualities he heard and measured. So if there’s anything poor about the sound and measurements he will mention those, but also if there’s anything redeeming or good, the speaker is doing, he’s going to mention those as well.

And try and relate it all to the measurements.

It would add nothing to the reviews, I find, for Erin to say “ I hate this speaker. I think it sucks!” That’s just more subjective opinion that doesn’t actually educate anybody. What does shed light concentrating on the actual performance of the speaker. (and this is why he will often say that, even if there is an aspect of the speaker that he doesn’t care for, he is speaking for himself and his taste and goals).

I know some people want a more ASR style rating of speakers from good to bad, and see somebody in reviews say “this suuuuucks!” But I find Erin’s approach of trying to give as complete a picture of how I speaker performs as possible, which includes looking for any good features even in the presence of some bad aspects , to be essentially ideal.

On ASR (and I’m not talking about Amir but some other members) sometimes I just see people who’ve got their criteria for “ good and bad” writing off some speakers as “just baaaaad… not worth anyone’s time” which have included some loudspeakers that I’ve heard and really liked, or at least really liked some aspects of the performance. And I would never know about the aspects of performance I might have liked from the “ it just sucks” crowd. Whereas I can rely on Erin I think to paint a more complete and less biased picture in his reviews.

So to wrap that up, yes, I’m sure Erin has some economic imperatives, but I don’t think those are compromising him at all. I think that his actual attitude and goals meet very smoothly with the equipment he hast to get his hands on to review. Manufactures know, and viewers who sent them equipment will know, there’s going to be nowhere to hide in terms of the measurements and his discussion of the speaker. But also that’s not gonna needlessly “ tell people what to buy or not.”

I don't care about ratings, good or bad. I care about integrity and truth.

Im sorry if my Bovine Excrement detector is calibrated differently than yours. I have no skin in the game, and am neutral wrt Erin.
It just really seemed that he was pulling out the stops to avoid what he probably would've said about any other speaker in this price range with these characteristics.
$2500 for the audiobling version of this thing. Inert cabin, but other than that, are you shitting me?
But, I'm sure people will buy them, it's a free company after all.

 

[Scrivs]

Oh, well. We can see the data for ourselves. What does it really matter what he says? I tend to skip ahead to the graphs in the video.

When you focus solely on the data, it gives us nearly the same insight as an ASR review. In fact, I find Erin's measurements even more valuable, especially with things like the compression measurements.

I'm cool with his videos, and I appreciate the value that they bring, I really do.

Here's another "softer" way to get my point across:

I feel with this video, he held back more than he would have vs other designs at a similar price, and measured performance.
I mean, it's essentially just a kit, right?

FFS!

 

[Heinrich]

I'm cool with his videos, and I appreciate the value that they bring, I really do.

No defense needed. The speaker goes well, really good in many aspects. And on distortion, what do we know? I would have appreciated if the topic of audibility was discussed a tad deeper.
For instance, was it audible in a sweep?

 

[Todd68]

No defense needed. The speaker goes well, really good in many aspects. And on distortion, what do we know? I would have appreciated if the topic of audibility was discussed a tad deeper.
For instance, was it audible in a sweep?

I understand ( could be wrong) that harmonic distortion, especially 2nd order, is the least important measurement when analyzing speakers performance. And actually could add something that a listener thinks is good, like SET tube amps. I know that’s far away from what anyone here would think is a good thing, Being as true to the signal as possible is the most important goal.

Danny’s defense was it’s not audible.

 

[RickS]

The distortion profile, so far as I can tell, is the tweeter being a cheap knockoff of the original. Might be a resonance exciting all that HD, but it doesn't really show up anywhere in FR, BD, or impedance as far as I can see...

Would need to test to be certain. Maybe when I get back home. I had BG towers with this tweeter and liked them. I have many samples purchased long before the clone variants by Danny and others.

The added distortion may be less audible under many conditions. In any event, it is not an individual of good driver quality. I find it ironic that some would claim excess distortion desirable and likely inaudible in the same fanboy discussion threads. Anyone with good judgement would not pick the same higher distorting tweeter over another more representative sample that distorts orders of magnitude less.

 

[Todd68]

Would need to test to be certain. Maybe when I get back home. I had BG towers with this tweeter and liked them. I have many samples purchased long before the clone variants by Danny and others.

The added distortion may be less audible under many conditions. In any event, it is not an individual of good driver quality. I find it ironic that some would claim excess distortion desirable and likely inaudible in the same fanboy discussion threads. Anyone with good judgement would not pick the same higher distorting tweeter over another that distorts orders of magnitude less.

Isn’t there something about the planer design that is appealing sound quality wise? I can’t understand why some of us that heard the best measuring tweeters available like the sound of this and prefer it over those better measuring options. Calling us fanboys is a little rude, but whatever.

 

[Arindal]

What I personally like the least on this loudspeaker is its directivity widening at exactly 3 kHz where you rather want to have less sound power.

Would not overly worry about this phenomenon, as is it is not occurring over the whole 4pi but rather a limited area outside the typical sweet spot. You can expect a pretty even response of indirect sound in the room between 900Hz and 3.5K and that is much much better than what most of speakers commonly touted as ´constant directivity´ or ´even directivity´ would provide.

Look at the directivity index over frequency which is not changing for more than 1dB in the aforementioned band. That is ideal in a limited band.

If there is any frequency band likely to be affected by directivity errors, it is the lower midrange which shows a rather unacceptable widening of radiation below 700Hz, and the steeply increasing d.i. above 4K. Both are typical side-effects of slim cabinet/small mid woofer design plus the waveguide in front of the tweeter showing a rather limited opening angle. The in-room FR in the video is showing several steps down in treble level towards higher frequencies.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

I'm cool with his videos, and I appreciate the value that they bring, I really do.

Here's another "softer" way to get my point across:

I feel with this video, he held back more than he would have vs other designs at a similar price, and measured performance.
I mean, it's essentially just a kit, right?

FFS!

From watching his videos, Erin generally comes across as a soft-spoken guy. He says a lot by not overhyping the strengths. Some people prefer bold, dramatic, and polarizing language -but that’s just not Erin’s style.

If you want an example, check out his review of the Borresen X3. Personally, I prefer this more measured approach over the kind of divisive language too many others use. And since his reviews are technical, we’re given the objective data we need to decide for ourselves.

 

[Scrivs]

I'm 100% with you Old School_Brad. I dig what Erin does--another lighthouse in a sea of exploitative, vacuous BS.

Actually the less verbalization the better, I appreciate that about the dude.

I deeply hope there isn't some future connection with the Charlatan-In-Chief, and that NRD Assclown

 

[Todd68]

I'm 100% with you Old School_Brad. I dig what Erin does--another lighthouse in a sea of exploitative, vacuous BS.

Actually the less verbalization the better, I appreciate that about the dude.

I deeply hope there isn't some future connection with the Charlatan-In-Chief, and that NRD Assclown

Heck you might even find his listening room is good. I give him credit for going all in on building that room, and providing insight on how important the room is.

 

[Heinrich]

Isn’t there something about the planer design that is appealing sound quality wise? I can’t understand why some of us that heard the best measuring tweeters available like the sound of this and prefer it over those better measuring options. Calling us fanboys is a little rude, but whatever.

Did I see measurements of the original version of the tweeter in this thread? Way less distortion in the upper registers, but some elevated (relative to output) distortion in the lower. Maybe it‘s a tradeoff, less tension in the dia? The lower x/over at about 1k is a very crucial feature of the design.

Would the tweeter survive a party?

 

[Mart68]

From watching his videos, Erin generally comes across as a soft-spoken guy. He says a lot by not overhyping the strengths. Some people prefer bold, dramatic, and polarizing language -but that’s just not Erin’s style.

If you want an example, check out his review of the Borresen X3. Personally, I prefer this more measured approach over the kind of divisive language too many others use. And since his reviews are technical, we’re given the objective data we need to decide for ourselves.

I agree. I think he gets the balance of objective and subjective right. Plus he communicates clearly and effectively. No jargon, no flowery language.

And if you just want the charts you've got that in spades.

Appreciate some want to see vicious takedowns. True that they can be entertaining done right. But you can get that elsewhere.

 

[Todd68]

Did I see measurements of the original version of the tweeter in this thread? Way less distortion in the upper registers, but some elevated (relative to output) distortion in the lower. Maybe it‘s a tradeoff, less tension in the dia? The lower x/over at about 1k is a very crucial feature of the design.

Would the tweeter survive a party?

I get what they were shooting for, but don’t know how successful it was. Party levels definitely not a good idea with this model.

I agree. I think he gets the balance of objective and subjective right. Plus he communicates clearly and effectively. No jargon, no flowery language.

And if you just want the charts you've got that in spades.

Appreciate some want to see vicious takedowns. True that they can be entertaining done right. But you can get that elsewhere.

ASR posters pretty much took care of that.

 

[Heinrich]

I get what they were shooting for, but don’t know how successful it was.

Maybe the tweeter now, with newer implementations has a less tense diaphragm. Speculating that the (crucial) low x/over needed that.
I personally think that any planar is down-handedly superseeded by a cheap dome, example given from Vifa/Peerless even without a waveguide.
If the low x/over is a tradeoff between power handling (beyond a short term sweep), distortion, now in the upper registers, and vertical dispersion, then the design in question is questionable. The planar tweeter would in case again prove its merits, or better to say the lack of. And again it would be an urban legend exploited for the worse.

 

[Arindal]

I personally think that any planar is down-handedly superseeded by a cheap dome, example given from Vifa/Peerless even without a waveguide.

Try a Beyma or one of the bigger Mundorf AMTs, and you will rethink this claim.

If the low x/over is a tradeoff between power handling (beyond a short term sweep), distortion, now in the upper registers, and vertical dispersion, then the design in question is questionable.

With the aforementioned AMT, there is no such tradeoff in terms of power handling, distortion or x-over frequency. They are among the best tweeters in existence.

Vertical dispersion, though, is a different question, as their diaphragms differ in size and shape from any dome. Can be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the application, definitely requiring a different strategy in terms of directivity, waveguides and alike.

 

[Heinrich]

Vertical dispersion, though, is a different question, …

What you say, it’s all a compromise. I have conveyed my criticism, ok. I can only hope, or may in the context of this forum be sure, that people don‘t fall for the esoteric claims on planars these days no more. Not that Danny would have told such, but „it is in the air“?

 

[dfuller]

Planars for sure do have a sound to them, because they have approximately stupid wide horizontal dispersion - at least, until they beam. This one is hitting +/-80 degrees in the upper mids to presence region. This is something I've noticed on every planar tweeter equipped speaker I've ever heard - it presents as being really presence forward (which some will hear as detail).

Try a Beyma or one of the bigger Mundorf AMTs, and you will rethink this claim.

To be clear, an AMT is not a planar. AMTs are basically corrugated planars that work more on the principle of a bellows, vs a planar which is a less-delicate ribbon (basically).

 

[amirm]

Appreciate some want to see vicious takedowns. True that they can be entertaining done right. But you can get that elsewhere.

Where would that be? No "reviewer" out there does any kind of take down for anything they are loaned to review. Everything is either great, best they have heard, punches above its weight, or at worse, "very good for price." So I assume you are talking about me and my reviews?

 

[Todd68]

Planars for sure do have a sound to them, because they have approximately stupid wide horizontal dispersion - at least, until they beam. This one is hitting +/-80 degrees in the upper mids to presence region. This is something I've noticed on every planar tweeter equipped speaker I've ever heard - it presents as being really presence forward (which some will hear as detail).

To be clear, an AMT is not a planar. AMTs are basically corrugated planars that work more on the principle of a bellows, vs a planar which is a less-delicate ribbon (basically).

What I hear is lots of detail, more realistic sounding (to me anyway) cymbal hits with plenty of presence without sounding harsh or causing listening fatigue. With good dynamics. Hey it has more harmonic distortion but it’s a trade off.

Other tweeters I used, were on the soft side or less dynamic, some causing fatigue. I guess lots of that could of been the design and not necessarily the tweeter type.

 

[Doublej]

Where would that be? No "reviewer" out there does any kind of take down for anything they are loaned to review. Everything is either great, best they have heard, punches above its weight, or at worse, "very good for price." So I assume you are talking about me and my reviews?

The Scientific Audiophile will occasionally lambaste a product.