Micca RB42 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[beefkabob]

To paraphrase Tolstoy, good speakers are all alike; bad speakers are all bad in their own way.

You smart.

I didn't particularly like how the KEF L50 sound. I can't imagine I'd particularly like these. At least they're cheap.

 

[Tks]

I think they sent me two different models.

Gonna be awesome to see how they perform

 

[Thomas_A]

Interpretation of the frequency response graphs gets into the subjective territory. We could listen to the same speakers and come to different conclusions about what's bright, hard, or forward to us right? We have to specify that these are relative and subjective, not absolutes.

Weill you have to do it blindly, trained and compare speakers pairwise and by the number. Speakers peaking in frequency response in the 2-6 kHz region are by most people judged as bright and forward compared to speaker with the opposite response. Also as "detailed" but in the long run as tiresome.

and edit: Above is also exaggerated by the stereo system errors where the stereo setup causes a dip between 1-2 kHz and peaking 2-6 kHz in the range +/- 3 dB for the phantom center.

 

[Blumlein 88]

From presentation point of view, we need to eliminate the negative ratings. I have one speaker that I can test that hopefully will the negative anchor and we can then offset from that...

Hopefully you aren't talking about ML ESL panels?

I do hope you can try some panels though. I'd prefer they be panels and not panel/sub hybrid.

My proposal would be some version of Quads. They are smaller and more manageable than most panels. Can ship UPS well enough, they are known to have reliable sample to sample quality so you only need one. Surely someone within short driving distance in your part of the world has some ESL-63's or one of the latter updated QUAD clones of that speaker. One they can part with a few days to let you measure it.

Anyone out there in Washington have some Quads for this?

 

[amirm]

No, it is not a panel.

 

[MZKM]

From presentation point of view, we need to eliminate the negative ratings. I have one speaker that I can test that hopefully will the negative anchor and we can then offset from that...

The negative value for the y-axis is just so the data labels are visible (the graph that Sean used for the headphone scaled scores does the same).

 

[MZKM]

@MZKM this might open up a can of worms, and be a lot more work, but I think it may be useful to calculate the preference ratings for the speakers tested so far using Olive's first formula for Test One

I’ll see what I can do.

 

[napilopez]

@MZKM this might open up a can of worms, and be a lot more work, but I think it may be useful to calculate the preference ratings for the speakers tested so far using Olive's first formula for Test One, and compare those scores with the ones already computed using the final formula. If the scores are closely matched, I think this would be further evidence that they're correct, as the first formula had a higher correlation coefficient, and was made using data from stand-mounted speakers, which all of the ones Amir has tested so far are. (This would be even better evidence for the scores being correct if Olive had highlighted the speakers from Test One in the correlation plot for all the speakers, and these highlighted speakers were close to the regression line. Alas he didn't, so we don't know exactly how closely the initial and final formulas' preference ratings should match. I think the fact they both show high correlation with actual ratings suggests they should be fairly close though.)

If it's not too much of a hassle, this could be interesting, good call @bobbooo. Makes sense for now since Amir has been testing only bookshelf speakers so far. Again, it would be interesting to see what the outliers are, as the generalized preference score used speakers of all shapes and sizes, with more variety in dispersion.

I also can't help but wonder what such an experiment would look like today. Surely these papers were influential enough that more speakers are designed to follow their principles today than back in the day. After all, part of the goal of these studies was to debunk the popular Consumer Reports model of flat sound power. We probably have better speakers for it.

 

[MZKM]

Yes. Below is what Olive said about the lower 0.86 correlation for the final formula applied to all the speaker tests compared to the initial formula only applied to one listening test, which had a higher correlation coefficient of 0.995 (~1 i.e. almost perfect):



Here's the correlation graph for the first formula applied to Test One:

View attachment 48711

This may look great, but consider the speaker sample size is only 13, compared to 70 for the final formula. Plus I believe all these 13 speakers were stand-mounted designs, whereas the full 70 included all different types and sizes of speakers, so the first formula may not work as well for other speaker types.

@MZKM this might open up a can of worms, and be a lot more work, but I think it may be useful to calculate the preference ratings for the speakers tested so far using Olive's first formula for Test One, and compare those scores with the ones already computed using the final formula. If the scores are closely matched, I think this would be further evidence that they're correct, as the first formula had a higher correlation coefficient, and was made using data from stand-mounted speakers, which all of the ones Amir has tested so far are. (This would be even better evidence for the scores being correct if Olive had highlighted the speakers from Test One in the correlation plot for all the speakers, and these highlighted speakers were close to the regression line. Alas he didn't, so we don't know exactly how closely the initial and final formulas' preference ratings should match. I think the fact they both show high correlation with actual ratings suggests they should be fairly close though.)

Got an 8.3 for the Neumann with the Test One data. Will have to automate it to be able to apply it to the other speakers and see if there is any major differences in ranking and spacing of scores with the generalized model.

 

[Kaiju]

Thanks for honesty Amir regardless youtube buzz.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I don't know...Doesn't really seem to me that Amir's review kills the buzz necessarily. I'm pretty impressed with how the RB42s came out here at a their price point. I think if there's been a buzz-kill, it really happened in the LS50 review...

 

[CerealKiller]

Any JBL arena candidate under the waiting line? Thank You very much for your awsome and dedicated work as always Amir

 

[digicidal]

I don't know...Doesn't really seem to me that Amir's review kills the buzz necessarily. I'm pretty impressed with how the RB42s came out here at a their price point. I think if there's been a buzz-kill, it really happened in the LS50 review...

Yeah, to me the measured response is far from bad considering the price... make them $1,000 speakers (LS50) and then you'd get what I felt subjectively when I auditioned them... and then returned them. Not saying that I thought the LS50's were "bad" either... I just didn't care for them much, and didn't even like them as well as my much cheaper Polk's (provided those were off-axis by 15-20 degrees).

I think I'd consider these if I wanted a "guest room" system with a cheap integrated/AVR... or at least I would have a couple years ago when I listened to the Kef's. As long as there were tone controls I could trim the treble slightly and call it a day. Now that I know what a $300 DAC with volume control and two JBL 3-series on sale can get me... I'd probably go that direction for both simplicity and sound quality.

On the other hand, if he can get over the "brightness" those seem like a great set for @amirm to run in the camper. Nice and small while reasonably accurate at the same time. I also think, given the price at least, that getting 3-4 pairs would make a really good in-place upgrade for someone currently trying to get by with a satellite+sub HTIB setup - provided the AVR used was decent. Too bad they're not already keyed for wall/ceiling mounting. In most of those applications, a little extra brightness could actually be appreciated (especially if listening at lower levels).

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yeah I think the RB42's are sort of a weird "niche" speaker. They are a really small speaker that actually might not be well-suited for near-field/desktop use. They seem to need some space. They are also best-suited for moderate SPLs I think. They do seem to respond well to EQ which can allow for some tweaking to level their response off. I think they are perfect for my particular situation, lol. I don't want high volume or a sub as I'm in an apartment. I do want small, and cheap is good because they are really just a temporary solution till I'm in a place where I can actually make proper use of some really good speakers. I actually looked at the KEFs too when I was shopping around and almost pulled the trigger just based on their current ubiquitous status in the audiophile community...kinda glad I didn't.

 

[mhardy6647]

I think you're thinking of Dayton's MKxxx series of speakers, which appear to use the same woofer as the Micca RB42. The tweeter on Dayton's speakers is superficially similar but I don't know if it's actually the same. The Miccas certainly have a more elaborate crossover, for whatever that's worth.
The C-Notes kit speakers have completely different drivers. 1" dome tweeters instead of 0.75", and a 5" aluminum cone woofer.

The C-Notes are absolutely wonderful. At $100/pair, I have zero hesitation in calling them the greatest value in the speaker world. That product page has a build video and the PDF manual lists the tools you'll need if that's something anybody's interested in tackling once they're back in stock.

Flat response, great dispersion characteristics, and strong output down to the 40hz range. I find their sound very similar to the JBL 305's, perhaps a bit mellower and perhaps with wider dispersion. To me their only real downside is that (like the 305s) they don't get super loud and their max output might not satisfy in a larger room.

There's nearly $85 worth of drivers in a pair of the C-Notes; it's almost like you're getting the cabinet and crossover parts for free.

oh, heck! Are they on the 'to be tested list' here?
I've been resisting a pair of these for a long time... don't make me buy a pair, 'K?

 

[Nathan Raymond]

@amirm is Vanatoo on the agenda in the near future?

https://vanatoo.com/

I think it makes a lot of sense to take a look at these, they don't seem to be mentioned much around here.

Noaudiophile really liked the Vanatoo speakers he reviewed:

http://noaudiophile.com/Vanatoo_Transparent_One/

http://noaudiophile.com/Vanatoo_Transparent_Zero/

 

[Nathan Raymond]

I am now super interested to see the MB42X. I had those for a few years and never understood the high praise. The pioneers in the same price range sound leagues better imo (Amir may need to review that too).

I can give a bit of background to the Micca's appeal because I have a bunch of computers at home and have always had speakers at each of their stations and went from crappy "computer" speakers long ago to using small desktop amps and small bookshelf speakers (and these days small subs as well). A long time ago I picked up a pair of the the Infinity Primus P143, which while well built, had a response that I think is not unlike the larger P163 reviewed here:

http://noaudiophile.com/Infinity_P163/

So, not great. When the Pioneer SP-BS21-LR came out, they had a lot of hype, and I picked up a pair, and while they had more bass, it wasn't really an upgrade from the Primus:

http://noaudiophile.com/Pioneer_BS-21/

Micca came onto the scene with the very affordable MB42, but they lacked a crossover, so I ignored them:

http://noaudiophile.com/Micca_MB42/

The MB42x came out with a crossover (and Micca even offered to sell the crossover as an upgrade kit to owners of the MB42), and I picked up a pair and thought they were good for the price as small passive speakers in a casual near-field listening setting:

http://noaudiophile.com/Micca_MB42x_Bookshelf_Speakers/

Micca raised the price a bit over time, and I've read that there have been at least three revisions to them, so I'm not sure that Noaudiophile review would apply to the current revision. A while back I put together a 5.1 setup with the Micca MB42X-C center channel and an old Energy 8" sub a for my gaming PC, and it's not bad (certainly lots better than PC 5.1 "gaming" speakers). Fits well on my desk along with a 34" ultrawide monitor and a glass cube ATX case.

In the <$100 category I think the Pioneer SP-BS22-LR are a safe bet (an improvement over the earlier BS-21):

http://noaudiophile.com/Pioneer_BS-22/

When you get <$100 small speakers usually compromise something, whether it is cabinet build, crossover (or lack thereof), port tuning, or driver distortion. I did manage to pick up a pair of KEF C1 Bookshelf speakers for $99 direct from KEF during a sale (MSRP $299), and their build quality and overall performance is a step up from all these, which isn't surprising.

 

[JohnBooty]

oh, heck! Are they on the 'to be tested list' here?
I've been resisting a pair of these for a long time... don't make me buy a pair, 'K?

At their price, everybody in this hobby should buy a pair! Unlike me, Parts Express can at least help folks exercise some restraint since they're listed as out of stock for the next few months. =)

 

[confucius_zero]

I powered it using the Purifi amplifier.

and what dac?

 

[amirm]

and what dac?

Topping DX3 Pro.