Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 9,621
- Likes
- 10,310
I stand corrected then. Thought is the classic exotic driver.
Which one is the correct?
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
GRIMM Audio LS1c & SB1 DSP Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Which one is the correct?
And also the 8inch of the LS1 is DSP corrected, so does not follow any standard speaker modeling...
mar1o
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2021
- Messages
- 21
- Likes
- 86
I really like the concept of this speaker, which is why I chose it as my first DIY project.
Although the project has been finished for some time now, I still really enjoy listening to the whole setup. I probably haven't been able to tune it to the same level of maturity as Grimm Audio. Nevertheless, I was able to empathise with Armins listening impressions very well.
As home cinema or cinema in general is also a passion of mine, I am toying with the idea of building the concept again for centres, surrounds, etc. However, headroom is an advantage, especially in the cinema. That's why I'm always on the lookout for drivers that could make this possible. But it is the unique combination of the DXT dome tweeter and the Excel magnesium bass-midrange drivers what makes this speaker concept working. Unfortunately, I had yet seen a spin of the LS1a version to compare whether this could have a significant influence on the dispersion behaviour. A Purifi 8" aluminium bass-midrange driver, for example, would be an easy swap in terms of geometry and, in terms of low distortion at high spl, probably the optimum for home audio at the moment. Purifi's new tweeter would also be a possible replacement for the DXT dome tweeter. But would a similarly low directivity error also be possible with pairing this state of the art drivers? I'm still struggling with this and should familiarise myself with VituixCAD to discover opportunities.
Perhaps someone of you has already thought about to upgrade LS1 concept without compromise controlled wide directivity behavior too much?
Although the project has been finished for some time now, I still really enjoy listening to the whole setup. I probably haven't been able to tune it to the same level of maturity as Grimm Audio. Nevertheless, I was able to empathise with Armins listening impressions very well.
As home cinema or cinema in general is also a passion of mine, I am toying with the idea of building the concept again for centres, surrounds, etc. However, headroom is an advantage, especially in the cinema. That's why I'm always on the lookout for drivers that could make this possible. But it is the unique combination of the DXT dome tweeter and the Excel magnesium bass-midrange drivers what makes this speaker concept working. Unfortunately, I had yet seen a spin of the LS1a version to compare whether this could have a significant influence on the dispersion behaviour. A Purifi 8" aluminium bass-midrange driver, for example, would be an easy swap in terms of geometry and, in terms of low distortion at high spl, probably the optimum for home audio at the moment. Purifi's new tweeter would also be a possible replacement for the DXT dome tweeter. But would a similarly low directivity error also be possible with pairing this state of the art drivers? I'm still struggling with this and should familiarise myself with VituixCAD to discover opportunities.
Perhaps someone of you has already thought about to upgrade LS1 concept without compromise controlled wide directivity behavior too much?
Last edited:
mar1o
Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2021
- Messages
- 21
- Likes
- 86
But there is also a newer or upgraded and much more expensive W22 version.
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 9,621
- Likes
- 10,310
That one seems even better down low and the selected 70Hz x-over makes more sense.
Vuki
Senior Member
There is obviously many settings that could change low frequency response. Thank you for pointing me to the manual
But with so many unknown variables what puzzles me is blind faith in papal infallibility.
A flat response below the "Schroeder frequency" is not very important. To get good bass in the room, you'll have to EQ based on in-room measurements, which will be unique to each room, and speaker placements, and listening position(s). So it doesn't matter a whole lot if the speaker or sub has a flat response below ~100 Hz (to when its low frequency roll off starts).
What really matters is whether it can supply the quantity of bass you want after EQ.
What really matters is whether it can supply the quantity of bass you want after EQ.
Yep, that's the rub...like many others have said, too.
I wonder if the bass response would have drawn as much scrutiny, if the price were more in line (that is, much lower) with similar performing alternatives .....
I rather doubt it.
At the current asking, imo a speaker should do everything right. The bass plain isn't there.
The 12" may have some fancy tech behind it, and DSP contour boost to boot...it may even have higher linear excursion capability than most all 12"s......
....but in the end, it's still just a single sealed 12".
To me, this is the real issue, not whether the measurements are anechoic vs boundary, etc.
The issue is insufficient bottom end displacement for a speaker of this price.
And I don't think we can rationalize a way around the insufficiency.
I know a lot of folks are on board with the idea of room-gain and DSP boost for sealed, to overcome displacement limitation. Room gain, when real, works for sure.
DSP boost works at low SPL ...only. When boost is properly accounted for, it needs to be subtracted from whatever calculated max SPL we think we can get based off sensitivity.
This shows up with quickly with rapidly rising bottom end distortion. Shows up even worse when measuring linear headroom for peaks collapse.
Anyway, I'm sure it's a very nice sounding speaker.... if given the suitably sized room, and right set of SPL and bass extension expectations/preferences.
Technology away from the sub is straightforward, makes sense, and easy enough to implement.
Just seems a bit silly priced to me...
So, I'm a little late to this thread, but anytime a speaker with the DXT is reviewed or mentioned, my ears ring. I have a fair bit of design experience with the DXT. It's just a fun driver to work with. Easier than most non wg tweeters to squeeze uniform directivity out. Add a very well engineered midwoofer and talented designers. You get a an elite product.
But, sadly, the design choices give you a flawed product. Or, to be fair, just don't buy the 12k sub...
All measurement quibbles aside, there is a more fundamental problem. DSP and feedback can indeed help linearize the nonlinearities of the LF driver and the rather small box modestly. But what they cannot do is increase the absolute spl of a 10 inch driver. The max spl is determined by Xmax and Sd. DSP and feedback can effectively lower the distortion at the max SPL. But they cannot increase the max SPL.
The max SPL is still fundamentally limited by swept volume.
You cannot get 20-40 hz base at decently high spl's from a 10" driver.
In absolute terms, it's not so much the price as it is the opportunity cost of the $40k. Sure, buy it if you have the money. But $40k also can get you a $10k speaker with similar directivity, better low end extension, equivalent asthetics, and you have enough money left over for a used 800cc adventure bike, sony A1 ii, probably squeeze in a GM lens and have 5-10k left over to sock away in an etf for 5 years down the road when you want another audio upgrade...
So yeah, nice directivity but limited bass extension. Hard pass because of the opportunity cost loss...
But, sadly, the design choices give you a flawed product. Or, to be fair, just don't buy the 12k sub...
All measurement quibbles aside, there is a more fundamental problem. DSP and feedback can indeed help linearize the nonlinearities of the LF driver and the rather small box modestly. But what they cannot do is increase the absolute spl of a 10 inch driver. The max spl is determined by Xmax and Sd. DSP and feedback can effectively lower the distortion at the max SPL. But they cannot increase the max SPL.
The max SPL is still fundamentally limited by swept volume.
You cannot get 20-40 hz base at decently high spl's from a 10" driver.
In absolute terms, it's not so much the price as it is the opportunity cost of the $40k. Sure, buy it if you have the money. But $40k also can get you a $10k speaker with similar directivity, better low end extension, equivalent asthetics, and you have enough money left over for a used 800cc adventure bike, sony A1 ii, probably squeeze in a GM lens and have 5-10k left over to sock away in an etf for 5 years down the road when you want another audio upgrade...
So yeah, nice directivity but limited bass extension. Hard pass because of the opportunity cost loss...
Still the bass, and only the bass, and that you won‘t spend the money, even if we could. How deep should the bass go at what spl max, how much distortion is to be allowed at each spl at what frequency, and if that would address brief peaks or continuous tones, and so much more: unknowns.
I see a little bit of arbitrary arguments, because the real impact of obvious, for every design one can think of, limitations. is an unknown.
Listening distance may be 4 meters max. Peak spl at home may be 105 dB at the ears. Peak spl takes into account the full spectrum, not just a single deep note - without any overtones. As we could know, mostly the fundamental and the overtones are at same level, the fundamental alone at -6dB and all overtones combined add up to additional -6dB, that two sum up to 0dB. But there is midrange stuff also. Again let‘s assume the mids come around at -6dB, and the bass portion at another -6dB, of which the fundamental takes above mentioned -6dB … ends up in the fundamental in need of -12dB of full scale output. Namely 105dB - 12dB = 93dB at 4 m distance in-room. Every doubling of distance eats up about 3dB, when in a not too big room, hence 4m will require +6dB extra at the source. We have two sources, which are positively correlated, what circumstance gives that extra +6dB.
All in all each sub alone should deliver the fundamental at 93dB sufficiently clean. It is the fundamental alone that counts, because any other comes with relatively neglectable demands. The allowance for distortion in a sub is quite high, say 10% won‘t kill it. That is what we get with the LS1.
Many won‘t agree to the above argumentation. It might not be my fault. I never thought that I would once in my lifetime defend abhilariouslyvexpensive product. But it is really hard to stand all the superficial accusations, and rumors.
What about the ripples in lower midrange? Real or an artifact of the Hankel function approx/?
I see a little bit of arbitrary arguments, because the real impact of obvious, for every design one can think of, limitations. is an unknown.
Listening distance may be 4 meters max. Peak spl at home may be 105 dB at the ears. Peak spl takes into account the full spectrum, not just a single deep note - without any overtones. As we could know, mostly the fundamental and the overtones are at same level, the fundamental alone at -6dB and all overtones combined add up to additional -6dB, that two sum up to 0dB. But there is midrange stuff also. Again let‘s assume the mids come around at -6dB, and the bass portion at another -6dB, of which the fundamental takes above mentioned -6dB … ends up in the fundamental in need of -12dB of full scale output. Namely 105dB - 12dB = 93dB at 4 m distance in-room. Every doubling of distance eats up about 3dB, when in a not too big room, hence 4m will require +6dB extra at the source. We have two sources, which are positively correlated, what circumstance gives that extra +6dB.
All in all each sub alone should deliver the fundamental at 93dB sufficiently clean. It is the fundamental alone that counts, because any other comes with relatively neglectable demands. The allowance for distortion in a sub is quite high, say 10% won‘t kill it. That is what we get with the LS1.
Many won‘t agree to the above argumentation. It might not be my fault. I never thought that I would once in my lifetime defend abhilariouslyvexpensive product. But it is really hard to stand all the superficial accusations, and rumors.
What about the ripples in lower midrange? Real or an artifact of the Hankel function approx/?
Andreas007
Active Member
It would be really nice to hear what Grimm is thinking about these measurements.
Generally, they seem to be willing to explain what they are doing, so why not chime in here and give some statement?
Generally, they seem to be willing to explain what they are doing, so why not chime in here and give some statement?
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 6,718
- Likes
- 8,071
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. But calling a fundamental acoustic limitation regarding the output of a 10" "superficial accusations and rumors" and then adding the spl of overtones (i.e. distortion products) to get to a reasonable in room SPL is a stretch.
If I knew the drivers actual specs I would use SL's old, but still quite accurate spreadsheet https://linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm and analogous analysis of typical in room spl levels, https://linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm to generate a better estimate of actual in room SPL levels.
If anyone knows the actual driver and it's parameters, I can grind it out.
Having said that, IMHO a 10" driver, even if it is a purifi, will not generate what I consider reference levels of bass.
Good enough bass. Sure, in a medium sized room, for music, sure.
But reference level, HT level, large room, $40k good bass?
Unfortunately no. You can't really handwave the swept volume limitation of a 10" driver...
Yes, it's just my personal opinion that an elite speaker, one in this price range, should be engineered to have very good bass performance.
Perhaps true full range response to 20 hz is not one of your criteria for a tour de force unit. It is on mine though.
I'm a one hit wonder!
sorry, bad link...
Boy, that was a long time ago! Anyway, I'm retiring soon from the career that kept me from doing more building, so expect a project or two after a 15 year hiatus! With more bass...
Mark K
a4eaudio
Senior Member
Best guess is these...
Yes, this is probably the target. A medium sized, rich person's room, for music. (Probably non-demanding music.)
Probably not this. The rich person has spent $40k for the speaker as a statement piece - it sounds good and looks cool/unique.
There is probably no difference between $40k good bass and $2k good bass. But, I don't think you need to do anything if your goal is to show that a single 10" woofer isn't going to produce "reference level, HT level, in a large room", I think we can all accept that at face value.
Vuki
Senior Member
What is considered to be a reference level bass?
Your second paragraph doesn't make sense to me. What both cases? I mean I know for a fact that you can use for example a +5dB Low Shelf on some speakers to boost the low end to bring up the entire response, including the dips, which can bring your dips closer to the target curve and then you just EQ down the peaks whilst leaving the dips filled in or partially filled in. That +5dB Low Shelf example is the opposite of what rolled off bass is doing in this reviewed speaker - it's potentially gonna mean you end up with dips further away from your target curve, that's a fact. Now if the bass were linear down to say 40Hz then you have a better chance of the dips being closer to your target curve. If you're using RoomEQ then there's no benefit from having a speaker where the bass is rolled off where you end up in a situation where you're either using large EQ boosts to ultimately lift the dips which results in greater distortion than what Amir's measurements suggest, or you leave the big dips and just EQ down the peaks but in this 2nd instance the bass will sound thinner and also less complete/accurate. There's just not a benefit to rolled off bass if you're using RoomEQ to control it, and it also misrepresents the bass distortion results in Amir's review (in terms of making them look better than what they really are in the situation where you'd be trying use Room EQ to a target curve) because you'd be boosting the bass to fill dips and also to meet your chosen bass extension for your curve.
I do agree though that if you use RoomEQ then it will sound good for one listening position and likely worse elsewhere in the room, so yes that is a decision, in which case the rolled off bass could be a benefit, having said that I enjoyed my JBL 308p speakers in room with just an anechoic EQ whilst leaving the bass alone, and those speakers don't really start rolling off until 45Hz.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
