GR Research

[ahl]

He is basically creating FUD around all reviewers so should they say anything negative about his work, it would not stick. That is his hope anyway.

putting his interpersonal skills aside, did his speaker speak sth about his ability to produce good speakers? and in you opinion, could he ask more for his speakers based on its performance?

 

[Larry B. Larabee]

I'm assuming that he started looking into just a simple basic blind test and realized it was a lot of work. He is always backed up with lots of work to do so it isn't worth it for him to follow up on that. Most people think a blind test is just an A/B with someone doing switching for you. A very basic non-Amir approved blind test as we did them for 25 years is not all that hard but it does take some work and time, sometimes a lot of time. The tests I was involved in were so slanted to allow the listener to hear a difference it was unbelievable. We still had no one ever come close. These were all stereo speaker tests, no headphones. The number of nationally known audiophiles (from most of the audio rags, I mean mags) that were saying they could EASILY hear the difference all went down in flames. Different amp? Nope. Wires? Nope Interconnects? Nope. We even, and I know this will shock Amir and our other engineers on ASR, we bent so far over to have someone, anyone, be able to tell any difference we even did completely different systems! Everything was different, Receiver, wires etc., the only constant was the speakers in the same position to the listening chair. Even complete systems were not able to be picked out for any difference.

One quick story from this old man. The best and most memorable was taking a relatively cheap receiver with one 14ga ultra cheap wire (this was before Monster Cable!) about 10 feet long and the other wire about 40 feet long and we coiled the wire up to see if we had any weird effects from the coiling. This versus fairly expensive high end pre-amp and amp with high dollar speaker wire and interconnects. Still, no one could tell any difference. But hundreds of audiophiles swore on the Bible they could tell everything apart with a small listening session. In fact they always said it would be EASY. We humbled them all. After 50 years, I'm still waiting for one person to be able to actually pass even a basic, fairly poorly run blind test. Knowing what we know about the ear/brain function from experts like JJ, it is not going to happen until we evolve to another level, like an alien!

Hey, a new speaker brand, Alien speakers! I thought of it first.

I agrre with you 100%. I bet scores of members also agree with you, too. I just wonder if anyone actually realizes what this says about the industry. If they do why the endless controversy about something that never existed in the first place, except in people's imaginations.

 

[Miker 1102]

He is basically creating FUD around all reviewers so should they say anything negative about his work, it would not stick. That is his hope anyway.

I think he is straddling a really unethical line. I don't understand this personality thing in Audio. I think this fundamentally is why ASR is important for people so they have a platform that is evidence based. It allows for open inquiry. That's so vital for people to grow and learn. That's my experience so far.

 

[Miker 1102]

I agrre with you 100%. I bet scores of members also agree with you, too. I just wonder if anyone actually realizes what this says about the industry. If they do why the endless controversy about something that never existed in the first place, except in people's imaginations.

Maybe it's the test?

 

[amirm]

putting his interpersonal skills aside, did his speaker speak sth about his ability to produce good speakers? and in you opinion, could he ask more for his speakers based on its performance?

More? No. They are simple 2-way designs where he tries to get flat response and good crossover mixing of the two drivers. His measurements are in adequate to characterize bass performance so unless the design is verified, you don't know if he has got that part right. He also doesn't seem to measure distortion.

 

[RMW_NJ]

Not to pile on Danny, but here’s an old thread where he touted an upgrade to an Elac speaker. Andrew Jones responded on page 2, post 26. There are subsequent AJ responses as well..he’s a nice guy so he takes it easy on Danny.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=138550.20 I remember the interaction going viral in our small audio world fairly quickly.

If forum rules prohibit linking to another forum, my apologies.

 

[ahl]

Not to pile on Danny, but here’s an old thread where he touted an upgrade to an Elac speaker. Andrew Jones responded on page 2, post 26. There are subsequent AJ responses as well..he’s a nice guy so he takes it easy on Danny.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=138550.20 I remember the interaction going viral in our small audio world fairly quickly.

If forum rules prohibit linking to another forum, my apologies.

very interesting to read the Andrew jones post, what struck me most was that speaker was not designed to flat frequency response and danny trying to get a more flatter response will make it sound different than what that speaker was loved for? well then every brand and might every speaker be called to have their own signature sound?

 

[ahl]

More? No. They are simple 2-way designs where he tries to get flat response and good crossover mixing of the two drivers. His measurements are in adequate to characterize bass performance so unless the design is verified, you don't know if he has got that part right. He also doesn't seem to measure distortion.

ok, I understand that he doesn't take complete measurements or at least doesn't provide these to public, but based on your review of xls kit, how did the end product turn out? and based on it, what should be its value for money? also any plans to review css audio criton 1tdx or 2tdx kit review, it would be interesting to see the value for money for that kit also.

 

[Miker 1102]

Not to pile on Danny, but here’s an old thread where he touted an upgrade to an Elac speaker. Andrew Jones responded on page 2, post 26. There are subsequent AJ responses as well..he’s a nice guy so he takes it easy on Danny.
https://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=138550.20 I remember the interaction going viral in our small audio world fairly quickly.

If forum rules prohibit linking to another forum, my apologies.

What a fantastic read. Thanks a lot

 

[amirm]

ok, I understand that he doesn't take complete measurements or at least doesn't provide these to public, but based on your review of xls kit, how did the end product turn out?

Performance was fine as I stated in the review. On cost, these are raw speakers with no finish:

And fair amount of time and effort to build them. Even though I am a woodworking, I rather not spend my time building something like this. A finished speaker like this built by someone else for you will be way too expensive relative to its performance. It only makes sense if you want it unfinished and your time is free.

 

[KaiDeus]

Reading the audiocircle thread you see why he is building "upgrade" kits and not many speakers.

Quote from his thread:
"So I am going to offer what I call the level 1 B6 upgrade. This will include a sheet of No Rez. It will include a .47uF Gen. 2 Sonicap for lifting the top octave. It will include a 1.5uF Sonicap to replace the poly cap that's on the board. This will improve detail and clarity in the upper ranges. And it will include a 20 ohm Mills resistor. This will further improve clarity over the stock sand cast resistor and lift the range that the tweeter covers by about 1/2 of a db. This will help balance out the response. The crossover upgrades are easy add on's to the stock crossover board that the average Joe can do himself. The cost for all the parts, the sheet of No Rez, instructions, and support is $76. plus shipping."

So for the package of some self sticking close cell foam, 2 capacitors and one resistor you are paying 76$ plus shipping. Has to be a pretty nice margin. Almost no development cost on your part and upselling whole sale items.

 

[ahl]

Performance was fine as I stated in the review. On cost, these are raw speakers with no finish:
And fair amount of time and effort to build them. Even though I am a woodworking, I rather not spend my time building something like this. A finished speaker like this built by someone else for you will be way too expensive relative to its performance. It only makes sense if you want it unfinished and your time is free.

yes you are right, mostly DIY is not for the value but the experience of doing it yourself and learning valuable lessons along the way, value for the money can be side benefit in some products.

Its now 1160 for finished speaker (from GR research) with standard crossover (or separate finished cabinet and kit to assemble and mount for 804) and 1443 for upgraded crossover. so at this price are these worth it or what would be better options in this price range 1200-1500.

I hope someone manages to gets 1 finished speaker and send it again for the review, for a updated conclusion, no matter if it improves or makes the former review worse.

 

[sfdoddsy]

Alongside my fancy commercial speakers I’ve also built various iterations of Linkwitz dipoles over the past 20 years.

As a purveyor of DIY dipole kits, Mr Ritchie and his designs, measurements and opinions has come up quite a few times.

The design of his dipole speakers (in spite of his claims) is close to Linkwitz and Martin King whilst ignoring their rigorous research.

His measurements are shallow at best, deceptive at worst.

And his aggressiveness when challenged is less than edifying. As are his cultish fans.

That said, many people love the sound of his open baffles. I suspect they haven’t heard a really good OB, but that is me being snarky.

I personally don’t trust him, his voodoo, and thus his designs.

 

[Shazb0t]

very interesting to read the Andrew jones post, what struck me most was that speaker was not designed to flat frequency response and danny trying to get a more flatter response will make it sound different than what that speaker was loved for? well then every brand and might every speaker be called to have their own signature sound?

Interesting how different people can read the same thing and come to wildly different conclusions.

From my read, Andrew poked fun at Danny's lack of basic understanding of wave propagation and audio science, inferred that his poor measurement attempts were simply that, and implied it was foolish to change the crossover points of a two way speaker based on a single sample and little more than a few in-room frequency response measurements (no distortion, power handling, etc.). I would call that a proper schooling.

 

[Steve Dallas]

yes you are right, mostly DIY is not for the value but the experience of doing it yourself and learning valuable lessons along the way, value for the money can be side benefit in some products.

Its now 1160 for finished speaker (from GR research) with standard crossover (or separate finished cabinet and kit to assemble and mount for 804) and 1443 for upgraded crossover. so at this price are these worth it or what would be better options in this price range 1200-1500.

I hope someone manages to gets 1 finished speaker and send it again for the review, for a updated conclusion, no matter if it improves or makes the former review worse.

As more excellent speakers enter the marketplace at attainable prices, the value proposition for DIY continues to decline, unless you simply enjoy owning the tools and doing the work. Add the used market to both sides of the equation, and the situation becomes more punctuated.

This guide (and the active version of the same) has some good suggestions for potentially better options in the same price range.

Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

I'm constantly asked which speakers to purchase...so, here you go! :D This guide is for PASSIVE speakers. For ACTIVE speakers go here. Click on the "Spoiler" buttons below to expand each section. Readme: Legend: Never Buy This Brand: Passive Bookshelf Speakers: Passive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Add the Focal 906 to that list. (Actually, why isn't it on that list?!)

If you consider the used market, many Revel and KEF models become available. KEF R3s, for example, are on sale for $1700 right now. $1400 is a typical used price.

 

[ahl]

As more excellent speakers enter the marketplace at attainable prices, the value proposition for DIY continues to decline, unless you simply enjoy owning the tools and doing the work. Add the used market to both sides of the equation, and the situation becomes more punctuated.

This guide (and the active version of the same) has some good suggestions for potentially better options in the same price range.

Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

I'm constantly asked which speakers to purchase...so, here you go! :D This guide is for PASSIVE speakers. For ACTIVE speakers go here. Click on the "Spoiler" buttons below to expand each section. Readme: Legend: Never Buy This Brand: Passive Bookshelf Speakers: Passive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Add the Focal 906 to that list. (Actually, why isn't it on that list?!)

If you consider the used market, many Revel and KEF models become available. KEF R3s, for example, are on sale for $1700 right now. $1400 is a typical used price.

any scanspeak illuminator based kit that has been reviewed well?

 

[Steve Dallas]

any scanspeak illuminator based kit that has been reviewed well?

I am far from an authority on DIY, but if I were building a kit at that price, the Carmody Carrera and Philharmonic BMR would be near the top of my list.

 

[fineMen]

As more excellent speakers enter the marketplace at attainable prices, the value proposition for DIY continues to decline, unless you simply enjoy owning the tools and doing the work.

What about JBL's M2? It is possible to come close at a 1 digit percentage of its price. Amp included this time.

Coming back to GR research, their humble projects aren't as desirable as the M2 is, sure.

Another aspect of DIY is to realise concepts the market hasn't appreciated (yet), e/g Linkwitz' dipoles and other stuff as cardioid, low IM designs etc. It is actually not rocket science, or if it was, people today are educated more than in the fifties (rockets) and have a set of measuring tools the experts two decades back could only dream of.

Again, GR research doesn't play on this field either.

 

[ctrl]

very interesting to read the Andrew jones post, what struck me most was that speaker was not designed to flat frequency response and danny trying to get a more flatter response will make it sound different than what that speaker was loved for? well then every brand and might every speaker be called to have their own signature sound?

Due to the fact (or it seems) that Danny never creates complete measurements (at least +-90° hor and ver) of loudspeakers or a corresponding loudspeaker simulation for his crossover updates, certain information such as sound power, PIR, DI ... which have actually been standard in the design of loudspeakers for years, sometimes decades, are missing.

I don't have exact data on the said Elac speaker. The original crossover frequency was 2.5-3kHz, which is exactly in the range where the tweeter tends to widen its radiation due to the baffle dimensions and edge diffraction.
Therefore, the high crossover frequency helps to prevent an increase in sound power in this frequency range, and the horizontal radiation will probably be more even.

All this is lost with the low crossover frequency of 1.8kHz that Danny has chosen. If then the frequency response is made as smooth as possible, it is very likely that this results in a extreme widening in the radiation in the range 2-4kHz.

In order for such a speaker not to sound aggressive or unpleasant at high sound pressure levels, you need a heavily damped listening room that suppresses the lateral reflections, as these reflections will have a hump in the 2-4kHz range.


This effect can also be observed very nicely with the X-LS Encore, for example. If Danny had tuned the speaker to the smoothest possible frequency response, then in the worst case it would look like the FR normalized to the axial frequency response.
Normalized horizontal FR Encore

This speaker would be unbearable.

However, Danny did not do that and did not smooth the 1.5dB dip in the 2-4kHz range due to the edge diffraction but left it unchanged.
On-axis FR Encore

This helps to ensure that there is only a slightly increased PIR (and SP) in the 2-4kHz range - yet this is often perceived as too obtrusive or aggressive in a normally damped room.
PIR Encore


Had the crossover frequency been placed around 2.5kHz, as with the Elac, PIR and SP would have been relatively balanced, with a slight dip (due to vertical cancellations) - many find this more pleasant.

In most cases it is not enough to make the on-axis FR smoother in order to achieve a tonal improvement.
The reality is a bit more complex, which is how I would interpret Andrew Jones' statements.

 

[ahl]

I don't have exact data on the said Elac speaker. The original crossover frequency was 2.5-3kHz, which is exactly in the range where the tweeter tends to widen its radiation due to the baffle dimensions and edge diffraction.
Therefore, the high crossover frequency helps to prevent an increase in sound power in this frequency range, and the horizontal radiation will probably be more even.
to achieve a tonal improvement.

Nice explanation, it would be relevant if you could somehow, at least, present original and altered FR