relmu
Member
I've been reading about Meyer Sound, and I'm curious if any of the members of this forum have or have owned, for example, the HD-1 reference monitor (detail attached). Or maybe the new Amie System reference monitor.
-
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!
Meyer Sound: studio reference monitor
- Thread starter relmu
- Start date
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
The HD-1 measurements are nothing special (especially for its price), which is obvious already from the look (for example no waveguide and hard edges)
There seems to be quite some hype though around the brand.
There seems to be quite some hype though around the brand.
The HD-1 measurements are nothing special (especially for its price), which is obvious already from the look (for example no waveguide and hard edges)
There seems to be quite some hype though around the brand.
???? the graphs have 3dB scaling they look great!
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
Here you go: https://meyersound.com/public/pdf/pp-amie.pdf
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
Look how the measurements shapes change over increasing angles and you see the common problems of conventional 2-way loudspeakers with large woofer and tweeter without waveguide, like for example the 30° measurement having more energy and being flatter between 2-4 kHz compared to the 0°, 10° and 20° ones. A full spinorama over 30° would show the problems even more.
kyle_neuron
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 149
- Likes
- 259
The majority of their products are in their excellent MAPP 3D prediction software, with full balloon data of magnitude and phase. It defaults to an anechoic environment, and the traces can be exported - so you can add virtual mics to create a spinorama if you want.
I don’t think that extends to Amie, but if you’re seriously interested then I’d wager they’d provide the data on request. Their tech team are a great bunch.
JRS
Major Contributor
Might these off axis issues be mitigated by the fact the intended use is as a nearfield monitor?
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
Use at nearfield makes those issues of course less problematic but todays state of the art is smooth directivity and as few secondary sound sources as possible. https://heissmann-acoustics.de/en/kantendiffraktion-sekundaerschallquellen-treiberanordnun/
kyle_neuron
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 149
- Likes
- 259
They change by around 2 dB at most. A spinorama is by nature am averaging of multiple measurements, which would smooth those small ripples out.
There are far worse offenders out there!
ernestcarl
Major Contributor
Interestingly, the HD-1 was developed to test microphones:
There is little reason for anyone to choose these today as studio monitors over more modern ones.
There is little reason for anyone to choose these today as studio monitors over more modern ones.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
There are always worse but the direction of change and engineering is the problem, especially for a 2-way with unit(!) list price in US in 2012 $4500. Also the ripples are not the problem but the directivity differences for increasing angles which a spinorama can visualise in a compact way.
Now compare that to the measurements of cheaper and in almost all aspects better 3-way monitors from Genelec, Neumann etc and you can see the hype...
kyle_neuron
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2021
- Messages
- 149
- Likes
- 259
I’m not disagreeing that some modern units achieve equal or better results. However, remember that we are talking about a speaker that was launched approximately 30 years ago. I think it holds up pretty well, all considered
If you think the HD-1 list price was expensive, then I'd avoid asking for a quote on a full Bluehorn system or even their 4" cube speaker Meyer is always on the pricey side, but they do very good work, both in driving science-led design and producing nice sounding kit.
I think I've seen some bargains on Amie speakers on second-hand sales too. I missed a pair not so long ago at a stupidly low cost from a closing down sale at a studio.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
Sorry, but even 25-30 years ago you could get loudspeakers and monitors with better controlled directivity and diffraction, exemplary:I’m not disagreeing that some modern units achieve equal or better results. However, remember that we are talking about a speaker that was launched approximately 30 years ago. I think it holds up pretty well, all considered
Review AUDIO PROFESSIONAL, September ... - Klein + Hummel
Review AUDIO PROFESSIONAL, September ... - Klein + Lies mehr über Audio, Hummel, Klangbild, Monitortechnik, Nachfolger und Testbericht.
www.yumpu.com
The Amie at least seem to measure very well. The HD-1 still look solid to me. Hard to tell really how bad the issues are without a full spin. There's usually some diffraction going on initially that gets smoothed out in cone and dome systems with no waveguide. Measurements out to 30 degrees really tell you next to nothing.
As I've noted before, waveguides aren't always perfect solutions anyway... the top preference score speaker is the Genelec 8030C and it has very obvious horizontal directivity issues of its own despite the waveguide, barely better than a decent waveguide-less speaker other than less beaming in the top octave.
As I've noted before, waveguides aren't always perfect solutions anyway... the top preference score speaker is the Genelec 8030C and it has very obvious horizontal directivity issues of its own despite the waveguide, barely better than a decent waveguide-less speaker other than less beaming in the top octave.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 8,646
- Likes
- 25,800
Do you mean your comparison with the Polk R200? I still think a good waveguide does better and don't forget that those are smaller than 8" woofers. I haven't seen till now great directivity measurements of 8" 2-ways with usual dome tweeter crossover frequencies and no waveguide, have you?
- Joined
- May 21, 2019
- Messages
- 4,036
- Likes
- 6,910
I'd love to see plots for the Blue Horn.
I brought it up in the R200 thread as a point of comparison, but here I'm just pointing out that waveguides aren't always perfect solutions. There are waveguide-less speakers with far better directivity than the R200.
Fair point about the 8-inch woofer though, I thought it was a 6.5-inch one.
Anyway, an example of a waveguideless speaker (really, it has a veryyyy tiny waveguide) is the Q Acoustics Concept 300/500:
Stereophile obvs: (https://www.stereophile.com/content/q-acoustics-concept-500-loudspeaker-measurements)
Anyway, I just don't think it's enough data to make a meaningful assessment. The Genelec 1031A for example shows that bass shelving and it shows some horizontal directivity error around 1-2kHz with a broad scoop in this region. The Meyer HD-1meanwhile appears to be a significantly wider directivity design and I'd imagine that would easily be a more noticeable difference than any potential diffraction (and as you know, I'd consider that potentially preferrable).
It's also further confused by the fact that the directivity measurements are much bumpier than the regular on-axis measurement meyer shares earlier in the doc, shown in purple. I think the data they share just isn't consistent enough for our standards. I trust genelec's data more, but it is an old speaker too:
(note, these were tricky to trace so it's not perfect)
JRS
Major Contributor
Thanks for the link--to tell you the truth it paints far too rosy a picture with the simulations; the on axis msmt in particular is fantasy. Olson's paper from way back in the 50's say so, and if you have ever used either Tolven's or Bagby's simulators, its ugly and counterintuitive. I guess what I found was questionable was the implication that anything without a wave guide should automatically be relegated to second class status. There are a great many exceptionally fine loudspeakers that don't benefit from wave guides. I suppose as a hobbyist who build loudspeakers I took exception, because it seems to suggest why bother? It's only going to be second rate. But it's not the case. I know there are many theoretical reasons for believing the pathway to greater fidelity involves using as such, but in practice, things are squishier. If you look at the link below your original comment, the msmts and review of this speaker turn out very well indeed. So I guess just as are apt to dismiss miniscule differences in sould quality from different DAC's, lets try to avoid overstating differences in potential outcome based on a set of assumptions that don't always reflect the real world behavior of audio devices. I use brick wall filters (a no-no in controlled directivity land) and I have cut corners and failed to round or chamfer edges, or use 6.5" woofers to 3k (eek, you're blinding me with that laser beam)--and had superb results. Not sure if they could have been made better--at some point it is sufficiently good it doesn't matter.
Dogma can be a terrible thing in all its guises.
Oh and if one wants to play with diffraction--this is quick and dirty and doesn't require EXCEL: http://www.tolvan.com/index.php?page=/edge/edge.php
Similar threads
