Michael Børresen explains himself?

[dfuller]

Even if I was doing a tuned-by-ear, "sweetened" non-flat response on purpose, this would almost be the opposite of my approach.

It's not even just that it's got a jagged response, it's that every deviation seems like a bad idea to me. A dip at 400hz can (IMO) make things sound less boxy, a dip at 300hz is going to make the low-mids sound thin and vague. Boosting the mids like that is going to make the whole thing sound shouty and strident... As for the treble, you'd want to boost 5-10khz to add air and sparkle, dropping it instead and only boosting 15-20khz is going to add a vague sizzle that's barely perceptible to us over-40s, and the dip from 3-4khz is going to make it sound dull and absent.

This looks like someone tried to make it sound bad on purpose. Also, the drop off below 100hz is worse than a lot of portable bluetooth speakers you can buy.

Just all around bad.

And people look at this and say "Yep, I was going to buy a luxury car, but I'll have these speakers instead"?

That's where I'm at - and at least some of this looks like the drivers are just connected in the wrong polarity. That huge crater in the presence region I am willing to bet money goes away if you just reverse the tweeter wires.

 

[steve59]

I was on another hifi forum several years ago when a pair of Raidho D5's came up for sale, I googled retail and came up with $235k or thereabouts! as I was curious about the difference between the d5 and d5.1 or d5.2 I read on. For the modest sum of $45k Michael and Lars will personally upgrade the xover and tweeter to the latest d5. whatever and stay in a local hotel overnight. The brand sounds like a deliberately exclusive club. Regarding the 4 year old speakers the owner reduced his D5's from (if I remember correctly $60k) weekly until they sold for $27k. I considered buying them just to try to flip them for a couple G's more, but I really only try that with speakers I wouldn't mind getting stuck with.

 

[JPA]

What's the advantage in their philosophy of using multiple 4.5 inch drivers VS let's say for example 2X10 inch drivers ?
I mean most of their speakers are based around that

Multiple drivers mean multiple driver motors, which can dissipate heat more effectively than a single motor. That reduces voice coil heating, which helps reduce or eliminate power compression. Multiple smaller drivers can also slightly improve horizontal dispersion and reduce vertical dispersion. Finally, many people prefer the look of taller, slimmer cabinets.

 

[kyuu]

Multiple drivers mean multiple driver motors, which can dissipate heat more effectively than a single motor. That reduces voice coil heating, which helps reduce or eliminate power compression.

Yes, but doesn't explain the choice of using 4" drivers unless you just want to make a very slim cabinet... but other speaker companies have figured a better solution by fitting bigger drivers on the sides to cover bass frequencies where the orientation relative to the listener is irrelevant.

Multiple smaller drivers can also slightly improve horizontal dispersion and reduce vertical dispersion.

That would depend on their orientation and the spacing between drivers, but granted for tower speakers that's just about always true.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Has anyone in this thread actually listened to Børresen speakers?

Aurender / Aavik / BØRRESEN

The room was labelled for the Aurender ACS10 only (on the floor under the rack). I personally don't understand why anyone would need such an expensive system to demo a streamer transport. On top of it, there is the Aavik I-280 Integrated, then the DAC-D280 (10k€ each). I was not familiar with the brand before. I have no idea what is standing around, but I feel like these could raise some red flags... Floorstanders are the BØRRESEN Z3. The system didn't sound right. Like, at all. There was a massive treble peak hurting my ears and the center image was literary absent. Very poor spacial abilities, the speakers were unable to fade in the room and you could locate each precisely from low mids to highs. There was a decent amount of low end, tho. I then discovered their price for a pair: 25 900€... or 31 900€ if you want them cryogenized !

 

[MattHooper]

I was on another hifi forum several years ago when a pair of Raidho D5's came up for sale, I googled retail and came up with $235k or thereabouts! as I was curious about the difference between the d5 and d5.1 or d5.2 I read on. For the modest sum of $45k Michael and Lars will personally upgrade the xover and tweeter to the latest d5. whatever and stay in a local hotel overnight. The brand sounds like a deliberately exclusive club. Regarding the 4 year old speakers the owner reduced his D5's from (if I remember correctly $60k) weekly until they sold for $27k. I considered buying them just to try to flip them for a couple G's more, but I really only try that with speakers I wouldn't mind getting stuck with.

I’ve noticed that Raidho speakers show up on the market fairly regularly and don’t hold their value very well.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I’ve noticed that Raidho speakers show up on the market fairly regularly and don’t hold their value very well.

They at least look pretty cool

 

[MattHooper]

They at least look pretty cool View attachment 494527

Yes, they have really beautiful finishes.

The Raidho I auditioned would’ve looked really nice in my room.

But alas, the sound…..

 

[amirm]

If the science of sound is known to everybody
Why don't all manufactures make good measuring speakers?

A lot more do now than they used. We are partly responsible for highlighting and educating buyers on what is a "good measuring" speaker. Without this awareness, people bought on basis of unreliable subjective reviews, marketing, branding, etc. A few years ago, the interview in the OP would not even have bothered to wonder about measurements.

 

[Ropeburn]

A lot more do now than they used. We are partly responsible for highlighting and educating buyers on what is a "good measuring" speaker. Without this awareness, people bought on basis of unreliable subjective reviews, marketing, branding, etc. A few years ago, the interview in the OP would not even have bothered to wonder about measurements.

On the other hand, measurements were standard in a lot of global hifi magazines since what, the 90s at least? 70s? Makes you wonder why it took this long for some people/companies to catch on. Something to hide?

 

[amirm]

On the other hand, measurements were standard in a lot of global hifi magazines since what, the 90s at least? 70s? Makes you wonder why it took this long for some people/companies to catch on.

Well, in 1970s, measurements did drive demand for audio products. It was part and parcel of marketing of audio products as well. This was in electronics. For speakers, people thought that there is no reliable metric for preference. Dr. Toole's research came later in 1980s but didn't make it into popular press. It still hasn't with stereophile, etc. still using their own measurement protocols.

 

[Keith_W]

It still hasn't with stereophile, etc. still using their own measurement protocols.

Stereophile uses MLSSA. If you check out their webpage, you will see them selling a ISA card for bus speeds "up to 16MHz", and requiring Windows XP to run.

It would be a real challenge for Stereophile to maintain a 25 year old PC to run its antiquated measurement platform. They would have to go to scavengers markets just to find parts! Surely they can't be so strapped for cash that they can't buy a modern mic and interface, and download REW for free? I mean, we're not even expecting them to buy themselves a Klippel, although that would be very nice if they did. The top two loudspeaker reviewers in the world - one has to haul speakers upstairs by himself, and the other operates his Klippel out of his garage! It has to be something else?

 

[kemmler3D]

I’ve noticed that Raidho speakers show up on the market fairly regularly and don’t hold their value very well.

It's difficult for anything in the $200K+ regime to hold its value, aside from commercial or industrial equipment in good condition... a bulldozer with low hours/miles? Sure. Hi-fi speakers with unknown performance? Good luck...

 

[kawauso]

They at least look pretty cool View attachment 494527

It somehow doesn’t look very attractive to me.
(Whoa… a virtual coaxial? And that many drivers stacked together?
The vertical radiation pattern must be an interference nightmare.
And what’s that recess around the tweeter?
It doesn’t look like they’re controlling the directivity at all.)

 

[amirm]

Stereophile uses MLSSA. If you check out their webpage, you will see them selling a ISA card for bus speeds "up to 16MHz", and requiring Windows XP to run.

It would be a real challenge for Stereophile to maintain a 25 year old PC to run its antiquated measurement platform. They would have to go to scavengers markets just to find parts!

I have heard stories of people similarly situated (Danny at GR Research) buying multiples of these vintage PCs and putting them in storage just in case they need them!

As to stereophile, I would think the management would think it would be a demerit to have more accurate speaker measurements! It would highlight the poor performance of speakers even more so chances of JA getting approval to spend money to get one is low. Shame as the industry would benefit greatly from them properly testing these expensive speakers.

 

[MAB]

Has anyone in this thread actually listened to Børresen speakers?
I’m not exactly dying to hear them, but if there’s a demo setup nearby,
I might try them out just out of morbid curiosity.

I have never heard Børresen, but I have heard his previous Raidho speakers and thought they sounded strange, detached, not good. Take my impression for what it’s worth: very little.

Cut to Erin's Børresen X3 review, the measurements are really intriguing. The impedance trace indicates that there are many uncontrolled resonances. These show up in the frequency response, which is horrible.

I actually own a speaker with similar magnitude resonances as the X3, the Yamaha NS-18 from the late 1970's. I have posted the measurements on ASR. The NS-18 are really bad sounding speakers, based on strange ideas: the woofer is Styrofoam, shaped like a human ear, and is bonded to the frame with a neoprene surround. The woofer is driven as a resonator rather than a piston. Additionally, it's really large (~50 cm diameter) and is crossed over to the tweeter at 5 kHz, so there are going to be additional resonances / cancelation effects just due to the size.

Here is the FR of the NS-18 compared to the X3:

The Børresen X3 gives the Yamaha with it's resonant membrane woofer crossed over at 5 kHz a run for it's money. Both are really bad ideas.

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1970-03.pdf

Despite Yamaha's claim about our ears, they likely sound worse than the Børresen. It would be nice to have a shootout between the two, blind and with controls of course.

 

[Arindal]

A lot more do now than they used.

Could you elaborate on which more influential hi-fi speaker manufacturers intentionally changed their policy towards better measurements in recent years? I am only aware of some walking away from previous policy of producing rather neutral speakers at a certain point in time (B&W, JBL and KEF come to mind).

We are partly responsible for highlighting and educating buyers on what is a "good measuring" speaker. Without this awareness, people bought on basis of unreliable subjective reviews, marketing, branding, etc.

I think many (the majority?) bought on the basis of own listening tests at dealerships or trade shows, and apparently not much has changed. Maybe the influence of advertisement and a handful of very influential publications has diminished, but I would see this rather as an outcome of a zillion of contradicting reviews appearing since the end of the dominance of printed magazines.

measurements were standard in a lot of global hifi magazines since what, the 90s at least? 70s? Makes you wonder why it took this long for some people/companies to catch on.

I have seen magazines from the late 1960s offering surprisingly detailed measurements, and apparently in the 1970s and early 1980s this became kind of a standard. With first the tech-spec war of nonsense in the late 1980s (my first $10 computer monitors had a sticker ´10,000Watts´ and spec sheet claiming 8-25,000Hz) and the rise of exotic high-end stuff during the 1990s, eventual dominance of fun audio stuff like Beats headphones and bass-heavy boomboxes, would say the importance of solid measurements and awareness for neutral transducers reached an all-time low. Has it recovered ever since?

 

[Purité Audio]

By ‘influential’ do you mean the manufacturers who have heavily marketed their designs for decades?
Whereas if we look at the new crop of ‘measurement led’ manufacturers.
Keith

 

[kawauso]

I have never heard Børresen, but I have heard his previous Raidho speakers and thought they sounded strange, detached, not good. Take my impression for what it’s worth: very little.

Cut to Erin's Børresen X3 review, the measurements are really intriguing. The impedance trace indicates that there are many uncontrolled resonances. These show up in the frequency response, which is horrible.

I actually own a speaker with similar magnitude resonances as the X3, the Yamaha NS-18 from the late 1970's. I have posted the measurements on ASR. The NS-18 are really bad sounding speakers, based on strange ideas: the woofer is Styrofoam, shaped like a human ear, and is bonded to the frame with a neoprene surround. The woofer is driven as a resonator rather than a piston. Additionally, it's really large (~50 cm diameter) and is crossed over to the tweeter at 5 kHz, so there are going to be additional resonances / cancelation effects just due to the size.

Here is the FR of the NS-18 compared to the X3:
View attachment 494537
The Børresen X3 gives the Yamaha with it's resonant membrane woofer crossed over at 5 kHz a run for it's money. Both are really bad ideas.
View attachment 494538

https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1970-03.pdf

Despite Yamaha's claim about our ears, they likely sound worse than the Børresen. It would be nice to have a shootout between the two, blind and with controls of course.

It sounds like the NS-18 has a strange presentation, but you actually seem to enjoy it.
Considering the price of Børresen speakers, the NS-18 feels like a surprisingly charming bargain.
I’m not sure how much you paid for the NS-18, but was it around ten dollars?

 

[Mnyb]

Could you elaborate on which more influential hi-fi speaker manufacturers intentionally changed their policy towards better measurements in recent years? I am only aware of some walking away from previous policy of producing rather neutral speakers at a certain point in time (B&W, JBL and KEF come to mind).



I think many (the majority?) bought on the basis of own listening tests at dealerships or trade shows, and apparently not much has changed. Maybe the influence of advertisement and a handful of very influential publications has diminished, but I would see this rather as an outcome of a zillion of contradicting reviews appearing since the end of the dominance of printed magazines.



I have seen magazines from the late 1960s offering surprisingly detailed measurements, and apparently in the 1970s and early 1980s this became kind of a standard. With first the tech-spec war of nonsense in the late 1980s (my first $10 computer monitors had a sticker ´10,000Watts´ and spec sheet claiming 8-25,000Hz) and the rise of exotic high-end stuff during the 1990s, eventual dominance of fun audio stuff like Beats headphones and bass-heavy boomboxes, would say the importance of solid measurements and awareness for neutral transducers reached an all-time low. Has it recovered ever since?

I think KEF nowadays strive towards neutral afaik ? B&W not so much they clearly choose the batman curve ( showroom sound )