GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP Speaker Review

[dsnyder0cnn]

This is definitely a case of "I'd have to hear them" to get a sense of what they are about. By the numbers, The Neumann KH150 seems better in just about every objective way.

Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Neumann KH150 DSP 2-way studio monitor (active speaker). It is on loan from the company and costs US $1,750 (each). The design language is not changed of course. The main woofer is 6.5 inches now powered by 120 watt dedicated...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The most significant number being less than 1/10th the price. I must be missing something that can only be appreciated when setting in front of the GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP speakers...interesting review as always.

 

[kyuu]

This is definitely a case of "I'd have to hear them" to get a sense of what they are about. By the numbers, The Neumann KH150 seems better in just about every objective way.

Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Neumann KH150 DSP 2-way studio monitor (active speaker). It is on loan from the company and costs US $1,750 (each). The design language is not changed of course. The main woofer is 6.5 inches now powered by 120 watt dedicated...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The most significant number being less than 1/10th the price. I must be missing something that can only be appreciated when setting in front of the GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP speakers...interesting review as always.

Well I think the biggest difference will be the dispersion:

That's largely a result of the large baffle, it seems like. Of course, you don't have to pay over $20k for that. For example, for $500 and cutting a couple holes in your walls:

Granted, Grimm's tweeter stays a little more broad into the highest frequencies. But on the other hand, the in-wall doesn't send any energy at all backwards.

 

[olieb]

Granted, Grimm's tweeter stays a little more broad into the highest frequencies.

Not only that, directivity/polars are much flatter too. (from 800 Hz up)

 

[dsnyder0cnn]

Well I think the biggest difference will be the dispersion:

Sure, but I'm not convinced that wider is always better. The KH150's dispersion looks a bit smoother from 400 Hz up but especially above 1 kHz. I imagine it comes down to personal preference, but I'd rather have a higher ratio of direct to reflected sound as long as the off-axis response is well-behaved.

Both look good. Which is best depends on the room. But the price difference is considerable. I'll be keeping my KH150s. :-D

 

[amirm]

Master Yoda avoids to answer if he even tried to setup speaker parameters via LS1 Software Control? If he did why there are no measurements of different setups? Like in that snake-oil catalog Stereophile? Why are ASR measurements of LS1 so different then every other published LS1 measurement, but other loudspeakers have similar measurements?

Stereophile measurements are quite erroneous in bass, showing a hump that is not there. That aside, no, I did not mess with the software other than selecting 3-way and which sub was in use. I am testing a system. That system takes a day to measure and process. Stereophile is making in-room measurements that take seconds so they can afford to mess with settings.

Regardless, this is the feedback from the company, not stating anything about settings:

"how did you measure the sub? Since it is intended to be used on the floor it must not be measured in free field."

I explained to them that I measure all speakers free field so would not be fair to test theirs differently. Their suggested method is ground measurements like traditional subwoofers are measured. I get that but again, I treated the speaker as if it were one unit, not some separate subwoofer stand-alone. Maybe I should do this kind of testing in the future but for now, all measurements are done the same way (anechoically).

Keep in mind that company provides this measurement for the original LS1:

Notice what I have highlighted. That it is a simulation, which I assume it means assumption of room/floor loading. I checked this specifically since I was not getting the same measurement and then noticed the fine print.

Also, anything you can do in DSP of this speaker to boost bass, you can do the same with other speakers. So it is not fair to go and do that to this and not to others.

Finally, I listened to the speaker and noticed deep bass to be soft. It plays it a lot better than any bookshelf but is not in the same class as other full range speakers such as my own.

As stated multiple times, this is a high performance sub but in a tiny enclosure. It is not going to spit out 20 Hz at high SPLs. And it is tuned that way. It may sound more boomy as it excites more room modes if it had lower response. So it increases the chances of good sound for the user.

 

[kyuu]

Not only that, directivity/polars are much flatter too. (from 800 Hz up)

?? Not sure what you're referring to here. Unless you're talking about vertical, which of course the example Revel won't compare favorably due to its MTM arrangement.

 

[TabCam]

The bass looks to me problematic. Although at first sight it seems good, the SPL drops significatly below 40 Hz while the distortion rises fast, too fast. it seems that it will play bass at too low volume and with quite a bit of distortion.

I had the opportunity to listen to them unrestricted but the subwoofer choked on pop the trunk from Yelawolf. Maybe that is why it choked?

 

[kemmler3D]

I'm not convinced that wider is always better.

As far as I know this is a question that has no objective answer. Some people seem to really like wide dispersion, and from what I've seen it's less common to see wide, controlled dispersion with good behavior off-axis. So from that POV this speaker might be worth it if that's your priority.

I'm saying this sitting here in front of some 8030s so it's not like I am pushing that view. I've just not seen a clear reason that someone SHOULD prefer one over the other. That argument is easier to make when it comes to distortion or flat FR. With width it comes down to your room and personal preferences.

Lastly, this speaker is objectively pretty expensive for what it is. If you want to DIY this thing I think you could do 90% as well for about 10-20% the money. It's a luxury brand and that's just part of the price, Neumann sells tools.

 

[Heinrich]

Don‘t you wonder that there is so much ripple on all axies where it is not expected considering the wavelengths? Resonances, I don‘t think so. Is there any other speaker of similar design measured on an an NFS? Big ratio of cone diameter to baffle width, and especially at low(er) frequencies, where the NFS really depends on the Hankel functions?

On bass, you do not want the free-air response to be flat that low. Boom it would say in-room, which isn‘t fun. The argument, it would allow to e/q down only the peaks, while the dips were already filled in, isn‘t sound. In both cases the very same cone excursion is needed. To some degree I lend Grimm‘s argument some credit, that a full e/q would optimize only one listening position at a time, better to optimize the room. These speakers are for home use addressing casual listening, obviously. One may want to dig into a recording once in a while, and you can, but that‘s not the main objective. Consumptive FUN, not over-critical labour for somebody elses profit.

Wide baffle speakers tend to sound lean by design, once the direct sound is adjusted to flat. Same with in-shelf speakers by design. I like it this way, no boom, please.

Yep, it might be helpful to get an in-room frequency report alongside the spinorama. A quick and reasonably clean pick is easily taken freestyle with a UMIC or so (the CES standard on in-room diffuse prescribes some twists, though).

 

[dualazmak]

Oh the sub is not attached to the speakers. You can put them anywhere and use longer cables.

Very nice to hear so!

 

[Pearljam5000]

Explanation on the development and measurements

 

[olieb]

On bass, you do not want the free-air response to be flat that low.

So you say Genelec and Neumann are doing it wrong?

I fully agree that in many rooms this will be too much bass. But the Genelecs and Neumanns provide (different) options to adjust.
What surprises me, is a company selling a very expensive active system with a selling point of providing an all-in-one solution for the whole experience and do not give the possibility to have a flat bass, just in case. And at the same time having a super sophisticated sub that seems to be not put to good use.

 

[Heinrich]

So you say Genelec and Neumann are doing it wrong?
View attachment 452970
I fully agree that in many rooms this will be too much bass. But the Genelecs and Neumanns provide (different) options to adjust.
What surprises me, is a company selling a very expensive active system with a selling point of providing an all-in-one solution for the whole experience and do not give the possibility to have a flat bass, just in case. And at the same time having a super sophisticated sub that seems to be not put to good use.

We share the Feynman quote, nice! Ja, Genelec etc don‘t design for non-pros. To let an amateur perfectionize bass in-room is a two sided sword. We see it even on this board quite often ( Dirac, sigh). Neuman expects the user to adjust reasonably, while their delivery exploits the max given a vented design, considering unloading below tuning.

And so forth, while the most prominent feature is the wide baffle for directivity purposes. I suggested it decades back in parallel or even before, maybe. Some realizations were DIY’ed. To a wide stench the white paper of Grimm reads like that ancient discussions back and forth, even the placement. What do you think? Don’t forget the ripples, is the Hankel approximation (NFS) sound? Just asking. I‘m ‚unwatching‘ this now, have fun!

 

[a4eaudio]

Yet... These speakers appear to sound very, very good by all (most) accounts.

It's almost like the designers of this speaker knew what they were doing, possibly even more than people on audio forums.

 

[kyuu]

Yet... These speakers appear to sound very, very good by all (most) accounts.

It's almost like the designers of this speaker knew what they were doing, possibly even more than people on audio forums.

Well, one, I don't think anyone said that these appear to be bad speakers. Mostly it's a question of their value proposition.

Two, lots of people praise all sorts of objectively bad and useless things in audio-land, so an assertion that some people think it sounds good doesn't really mean much.

 

[Arindal]

That's largely a result of the large baffle, it seems like.

If a fairly large baffle acts as the main ´waveguide´, you can expect a broad dispersion pattern in the region of +-100deg (v/h), resulting in a low directivity index in the region of 4dB, over a broad frequency range, that is true. Due to the size of the woofer and the tweeter waveguide, the Grimm is not exactly following this scheme, but getting close to it.

The rather interesting question is what competitors are doing using a smaller baffle and trying to achieve a higher directivity index. As your example is showing, this usually comes at the price of an imbalanced directivity index. As low as the Grimm´s below approx. 600Hz, narrowing down dispersion angle at a pretty unhealthy rate all the way to 5K when it is reaching a plateau of high directivity index (would estimate 10dB @5K which is a lot).

Wide baffle speakers tend to sound lean by design, once the direct sound is adjusted to flat.

That is indicative of a constant directivity which I would consider to be a good thing.

wide baffle for directivity purposes. I suggested it decades back in parallel or even before, maybe.

While diffuse field tonality is usually not a problem with wide baffle designs, in many cases the directivity index is too low and the whole thing is prone to dominating side wall reflections. With rooms being more lively and people expecting higher listening distance, I do not really see the advantage of wide baffle designs from today's perspective.

What surprises me, is a company selling a very expensive active system with a selling point of providing an all-in-one solution for the whole experience and do not give the possibility to have a flat bass, just in case.

Cannot speak for the manufacturer but I understood their statement so that a system with a groundplane subwoofer does not need a flat mode, as everyone will place it on the floor, no-one will listen to it under anechoic or free-field conditions.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Mostly it's a question of their value proposition.

Exactly! Since it's clearly an excellent product in most respects, IMO the main issue is ROI -- AKA "bang for the buck" -- at its price point.

 

[MattHooper]

If a fairly large baffle acts as the main ´waveguide´, you can expect a broad dispersion pattern in the region of +-100deg (v/h), resulting in a low directivity index in the region of 4dB, over a broad frequency range, that is true. Due to the size of the woofer and the tweeter waveguide, the Grimm is not exactly following this scheme, but getting close to it.

I guess I just learned something here because I previously assumed from my other experience with wide baffle speakers that they are more directional, especially in the high frequencies than a skinny baffle speaker.

I thought this was because the wide baffle would focus towards the listener sound that otherwise would, in a skinny battle speaker, be allowed to spread around to the sides. So you’d be more likely to hear those higher frequencies more off axis with the skinnier speaker.

That has often been the case in my experience with narrow baffle speakers that It tended to reinforce that idea.

Also I think my experience with wide baffle speakers, such as the Devore O/96, which are more directional, reinforced that,
(Though Devore does employ a subtle wave guide for the tweeter)

 

[hash70]

There seriously taking the piss with its 40k price

 

[Hayabusa]

Audio magazin measured -3dB @17Hz, 105dB max SPL (100dB without compression), 10%THD @40Hz & 100dB

View attachment 452916

Maybe even without sub? Do you have the full print?