Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
Unfortunately in desktop application floor bounce is an issue as not many want or can place some absorbers on their desktop. Also with its directivity loss above 3kHz due to its too small waveguide it might be good for "Hifi sound" but personally wouldn't want to mix on them.
I like the EQ option on the back of the speaker, that's quite intriguing and a good value addition, would be interesting to know more about that in terms of number of PEQ filters available, etc.
I was excited about this a while ago, but then found it is not really much different than the voicing corrections offered by other brands via (DIP) switches. It seems it is not a full-fledged PEQ nor GEQ - every of the 5 bands of EQ provides a few preset EQ curves for typical situations like desktop placement, boundary control, HF shelving etc...
You will see most KRK marketing material actually mentions 25 EQ *presets*, and if you look at some YT videos you can see how you can toggle between them with the rotary/push control.
It would be really cool to have a budget active speaker option one day with built-in DSP PEQ and (ideally) digital input
Compared to the ~$150/ea KRK Classic 5, it’s a decent improvement, not to mention the included EQ capabilities (but I wonder who this is for, as you can apply system-wide EQ; so people using this in a bedroom/game setup? Traveling professionals?):
Hey, that's cool! Another <$200 contender. It's crazy how much value you can find in monitor speakers these days. I remember times that were VERY different! Thank you, Amir! You're a gem.
Unfortunately in desktop application floor bounce is an issue as not many want or can place some absorbers on their desktop. Also with its directivity loss above 3kHz due to its too small waveguide it might be good for "Hifi sound" but personally wouldn't want to mix on them.
Since this is a budget DSP speaker with PEQ options built in (What a bargain!!) I would just do something like genelec for desktop mode, get a 150hz -3db zone and in practice it works
The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:
Score no EQ: 3.67
With Sub: 5.92
Spinorama with no EQ:
Port again, looks like a recurring unwanted guest
Fairly good directivity
Not that smooth
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.
The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
Score EQ LW: 4.5
with sub: 6.64
Score EQ Score: 5.05
with sub: 7.19
Code:
KRK 5 Gen 4 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
February252021-174633
Preamp: -0.8 dB
Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.97
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 84.5 Hz Gain -2.36 dB Q 1.15
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 359 Hz Gain -0.96 dB Q 2.73
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 646 Hz Gain -3.75 dB Q 2.5
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1356 Hz Gain -1.66 dB Q 5.4
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4442 Hz Gain -1.59 dB Q 1.96
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8005 Hz Gain -2.7 dB Q 1.87
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 10290 Hz Gain 2.43 dB Q 5.62
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 13639 Hz Gain -0.71 dB Q 2.44
KRK 5 Gen 4 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
February252021-174520
Preamp: -0 dB
Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 40 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.97
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 85 Hz Gain -2.36 dB Q 1.15
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 367 Hz Gain -1.13 dB Q 1.87
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 646 Hz Gain -3.75 dB Q 2.5
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1363 Hz Gain -2.28 dB Q 6.85
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 4425 Hz Gain -1.79 dB Q 1.46
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 8362 Hz Gain -3.7 dB Q 1.41
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 10158 Hz Gain 2.68 dB Q 5.62
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 13000 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 3.44
Spinorama EQ LW
Spinorama EQ Score
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
Regression - Tonal
Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements
The rest of the plots is attached.
Attachments
KRK 5 Gen 4 APO EQ LW 96000Hz.txt
493 bytes
· Views: 163
KRK 5 Gen 4 APO EQ Score 96000Hz.txt
493 bytes
· Views: 142
KRK 5 Gen 4 2D surface Directivity Contour Data.png
285.1 KB
· Views: 154
KRK 5 Gen 4 3D surface Vertical Directivity Data.png
415.3 KB
· Views: 133
KRK 5 Gen 4 3D surface Horizontal Directivity Data.png
Since this is a budget DSP speaker with PEQ options built in (What a bargain!!) I would just do something like genelec for desktop mode, get a 150hz -3db zone and in practice it works
Mind you the 150 hz desktop bump is a different issue than the presence region vertical directivity problem I mentioned above.
Also AFAIK this KRK series just offers predefined PEQ placement filters like the similar expensive Kali LP-6 which I would prefer.
Are you using laser or microphone for distorsion in the above measurement? Just here or/and in general, please?
Sorry for repeating this question but I think the method used effects the intepretation of the result. As you are a heavily measurement driven activity, I think it is fair that you describe your measurement technology and procedure in detail.
One needs to check whether it is shortcomings in the port design itself causing resonances above the required one for mode change at bass resonance or whether it is simply the port being a window to the cacophony of sound inside the cabinet volume due to undamped internal modes.
If it is the latter the simplest solution is to put the port on the rear, since bass is omnidirectional and will be properly added, but the higher modes from internal resonances will be projected away from the listener.
It would still probably be best to fully damp the internal modes though, I would have thought.
Perhaps too expensive to do consistently at this price level.
I've always liked the KRKs - they tend to get a bad rap in the industry, but my experience has been that they have good sound, and are very reliable. But imho, the KRK V series are the ones to get rather than the Rokits. To my ears, they are much better. @amirm any chance of a KRK V series review?
Unfortunately in desktop application floor bounce is an issue as not many want or can place some absorbers on their desktop. Also with its directivity loss above 3kHz due to its too small waveguide it might be good for "Hifi sound" but personally wouldn't want to mix on them.
Isn't someone mixing music always sitting right in the sweet spot tough? A significant proportion of mixing engineer still use ProAc Studio 100 as their mains. This guy has no wave guide. Possible that I am not fully grasping the importance of a wave guide, but intuitively I would have thought the opposite, more important for hifi in domestic use, where you want to be a few people listening and not only the one perfectly positioned for the full experience or is there something I am not getting?
Isn't someone mixing music always sitting right in the sweet spot tough? A significant proportion of mixing engineer still use ProAc Studio 100 as their mains. This guy has no wave guide. Possible that I am not fully grasping the importance of a wave guide, but intuitively I would have thought the opposite, more important for hifi in domestic use, where you want to be a few people listening and not only the one perfectly positioned for the full experience or is there something I am not getting?
I agree that a smooth directivity is even more important for usual domestic hifi listening where reflections and sound power dominate more but even in studio near field application the perceived tonality and imaging are partially influenced by it.