Michael Børresen explains himself?

[SigbergAudio]

I compared your company’s speakers with KEF, and they seem quite similar.
Sigberg Audio looks like the kind of speaker I would personally enjoy.
The reduced bass appears intentional, probably because they are designed to be used with subwoofers.

Yes the lack of bass is intentional due to the Manta being a 4-way system with bass modules/subwoofers, and these were not a part of these measurements. I will try to measure anechoically with a subwoofer on our upcoming SBS Generation 2 to paint a more accurate picture of the true response of the system.

From around 1000 Hz and below, the dispersion pattern appears sharply cardioid.
Is there any active DSP correction involved in achieving that dispersion behavior?

No, it is achieved as an effect of the cabinet design and mechanics.

It also looks like they would deliver bass with the kind of punch you normally get from larger speakers.

I don't know what your definition of large speaker is, but the Manta is a relatively large monitor, and you also need two subs to make the full system complete. The midbass driver is a 12".

So the recommended setup with dual 10D subwoofers will be a system with 2x12" midbass drivers covering 90-600hz, and 4x10" (sub)bass drivers covering 20-100hz. So yes, it is relatively punchy. The Mantas will also easily keep up with even four 10D subs (8x10" in the bass).

 

[Heinrich]

... makes the price totally bizarrely high.

Bringing a speaker to market at that price is basically a work of art, so it doesn’t have a price you can rationalize. Didn’t we already agree that the price of art just isn’t something you can really adjudicate? The creativity lies in the absence of any reason, and for that very reason it cannot be criticized—it’s beyond critique by its own nature (pun intended).

I'm just into Hayek, claiming that "the marketplace" is logically the best (read: only) method for optimal allocation of resources. Even if "information" is sparse and distributed, believe it or not.

Yeah some of the comments...

View attachment 494267

But there is some truth to Borresen's call. When a certain preference gets standardized, the question on how the preference was built is in order. To confirm its universal character doesn't prove the case, actually. I stick to the standard for better reasons, but won't confuse you more

 

[kawauso]

Yes the lack of bass is intentional due to the Manta being a 4-way system with bass modules/subwoofers, and these were not a part of these measurements. I will try to measure anechoically with a subwoofer on our upcoming SBS Generation 2 to paint a more accurate picture of the true response of the system.




No, it is achieved as an effect of the cabinet design and mechanics.



I don't know what your definition of large speaker is, but the Manta is a relatively large monitor, and you also need two subs to make the full system complete. The midbass driver is a 12".

So the recommended setup with dual 10D subwoofers will be a system with 2x12" midbass drivers covering 90-600hz, and 4x10" (sub)bass drivers covering 20-100hz. So yes, it is relatively punchy. The Mantas will also easily keep up with even four 10D subs (8x10" in the bass).

The sharp mid-bass dispersion pattern comes from the 12-inch driver and the baffle design.
The way the low frequencies spread reminds me of JBL, with an impression of strong punch.
The tonality also seems neutral, which is excellent.

 

[SigbergAudio]

As mentioned, I referred to particular Reference series models and I have listened to them side by side. In my understanding the tonality has changed quite significantly around 2010. And even if current models are not all the same, they in my ears more or less show a tendency towards the downward-sloped house curve.



I don't really know which result of a listening tests exactly defines ´smoothness´. Interestingly, such term is associated with the Børresens, which do sound overly ´smooth´ and ´silky´ in my understanding, to a degree I would not call them neutral. Same with the result of the dispersion characteristics of increasing directivity index towards higher frequencies. It contributes to dull reverb, bass/lower-midrange-heavy overall tonality. Some people might like the former, some the latter, I wouldn't call any variant ´neutral´ or ´natural´. Just fail to understand why one is a reason to disparage the designer, and the other one receives nothing but praise from technical/measurement perspective.



A bit cautious when it comes to bass response of a calculated in-room curve based on fixed parameters into account, as this is always far from an existing room with its room modes and boundary reflections.

But even if we are solely looking at localizable frequency bands (300-8,000Hz), the in-room response is sloped downwards in the -5dB region. In existing rooms with more of treble absorption and diffuse reverb dominant, this can be even more. Have never listened to an example in this ballpark which I would call linear, the lack of brillance and treble is quite obvious.

Here is the Spinorama estimate vs my own measurement of the Kef LS60 in a room that's around 20m^2. The real measurement has more bass/room gain below 100hz, but beyond that (and a suckout in the 150-250hz area) it's actually very similar to the estimate. The measurement is 1/3 smoothing to easily see the overall tonality.

 

[Heinrich]

Here is the Spinorama estimate vs my own measurement of the Kef LS60 in a room ...

Borresen has a point, when saying, that preference is arbitrary. The marketplace decides. Flat studio monitors are not the hottest sellers, but some people pay a truckload of money for his speakers. Regardless of their ugly appearence on the testbench.

This notion is true in its own right. We better admit: you cannot argue with people's preferences by definition. Statistics is moot for an individual's decision anyway.

Second to that, his comment on some peoples' obsession with speaker data is spot on. He just missed the addressee. As I see it, it's not Amir.

Again the spin chimes in, and deviation in directivity in the range of a mere dB or even less is discussed back and forth. While happily ignoring the room's acoustics, carpet or not, curtains, leather sofa or fabric, cushions, or just a chair for the enthusiastic mannequin in critical listening mode, ... presenting to itself what stereo could be, if all fun ist meticulously removed. Not the least, the misinterpretation of the spinorama and its foundational research seems to be a reality in many debates.

The standard is a valuable tool to align the listener's experience to the studio's intentions. Just use devices here and there that are similar in the decisive parameters, once these are known. There is no "real" thing in the recording, it is always synthetic, hence the importance of an agreement, which a standard is. (And nothing more.)

@sigbergaudio, no offense intended, but did you measure the in-room response according to the standard (mike pointing upwards etc)?

edit: see ANSI-CTA-2034, a pdf document, that was kind of leaked, section 13, caption of figure 11, and appendix "Basis for Estimated In-Room Response Calculation" in the last paragarphs. It first describes a common room, but then says "For these limited circumstances it has been found ...". On this board, though, the PIR is sometimes given more attention than the direct sound.

 

[SigbergAudio]

Borresen has a point, when saying, that preference is arbitrary. The marketplace decides. Flat studio monitors are not the hottest sellers, but some people pay a truckload of money for his speakers. Regardless of their ugly appearence on the testbench.

There are several things to unpack here, but I don't think Borresen has the point he thinks he has.

The reason expensive speakers with less than stellar sound quality sell isn't because preference varies wildly, but rather that sound quality isn't the only (or sometimes even the main) criteria for selecting speakers.

Beyond that, flat studio monitors aren't necessarily the best choice (even in terms of sound quality) for a home audio customer.

This notion is true in its own right. We better admit: you cannot argue with people's preferences by definition. Statistics is moot for an individual's decision anyway.

Continuing from the point above, we can argue about people's sonical preferences, but we can't necessarily argue about their choice in speakers.

Second to that, his comment on some peoples' obsession with speaker data is spot on. He just missed the addressee. As I see it, it's not Amir.

Again the spin chimes in, and deviation in directivity in the range of a mere dB or even less is discussed back and forth. While happily ignoring the room's acoustics, carpet or not, curtains, leather sofa or fabric, cushions, or just a chair for the enthusiastic mannequin in critical listening mode, ... presenting to itself what stereo could be, if all fun ist meticulously removed. Not the least, the misinterpretation of the spinorama and its foundational research seems to be a reality in many debates.

I agree that many couch experts don't really know what they talk about when discussing spinorama results on public forums, and share misunderstandings and misconceptions in the process.

The standard is a valuable tool to align the listener's experience to the studio's intentions. Just use devices here and there that are similar in the decisive parameters, once these are known. There is no "real" thing in the recording, it is always synthetic, hence the importance of an agreement, which a standard is. (And nothing more.)

@sigbergaudio, no offense intended, but did you measure the in-room response according to the standard (mike pointing upwards etc)?

I'm not sure I know which standard you are referring to, can you please provide a reference to said standard?

 

[Heinrich]

I'm not sure I know which standard you are referring to, can you please provide a reference to said standard?

We agree on the other points. Of course, the marketplace isn't rational. There's a severe lack of information, and (understandibly) low willingness to compute the data. That might attract, well, "windbags"?

On the measurement see ANSI-CTA-2034, a pdf document, that was kind of leaked, section 13, caption of figure 11, and appendix "Basis for Estimated In-Room Response Calculation" in the last paragarphs. It first describes a common room, but then says "For these limited circumstances it has been found ...". On this board, though, the PIR is sometimes given more attention than the direct sound.

 

[SigbergAudio]

We agree on the other points. Of course, the marketplace isn't rational. There's a severe lack of information, and (understandibly) low willingness to compute the data. That might attract, well, "windbags"?

On the measurement see ANSI-CTA-2034, a pdf document, that was kind of leaked, section 13, caption of figure 11, and appendix "Basis for Estimated In-Room Response Calculation" in the last paragarphs. It first describes a common room, but then says "For these limited circumstances it has been found ...". On this board, though, the PIR is sometimes given more attention than the direct sound.

The only thing it says is that the comparison is made with a microphone pointed at the ceiling, so not really part of the standard as I understand it.

Anyway, it also says it cannot accurately predict below 3-400hz, and above that it did indeed match, so apparently I did it correctly enough to match the estimation?

 

[Mnyb]

The only thing it says is that the comparison is made with a microphone pointed at the ceiling, so not really part of the standard as I understand it.

Anyway, it also says it cannot accurately predict below 3-400hz, and above that it did indeed match, so apparently I did it correctly enough to match the estimation?

I think Erin also have made that observation that PIR is a quite ok predictor . And hopefully everyone knows that the bass range is mostly room interactions .

What did you think of the LS60 ? in which way have your speakers a different tonality if they are different tonaly, especially as you also makes coaxial speakers (ime it takes some time getting used to coaxials ) In dynamics your speaker seems to crush most

 

[Geert]

ime it takes some time getting used to coaxials

It takes even more time to 'become unused to' listening to coaxials

 

[Mnyb]

It takes even more time to 'become unused to' listening to coaxials

yes once you go coax you never go back

 

[Heinrich]

I think Erin also have made that observation that PIR is a quite ok predictor ...

You may want to look-up the original definition of the PIR in the document ANSI-CTA-2034 as a pdf. It is closer than you think. Most people here, presumably Erin also target the microphone directly at the speaker when taking the in-room response. Some pros/ point it to the ceiling plus use a compensation while the mike keeps its directivity. That emphasizes the ceiling bounce.
The document defines the mathematical contributions of direct and indirect sound to the PIR based on experimentation which again uses the pro/ measurement method described above
Hence a match of PIR to an in-room response measured with another microphone arrangment is an oddity.

Also the document points out, that the PIR is not exactly a trustworthy predictor, but only under "limited circumstances", as they say.

Maybe we see confirmation bias, together with an exaggeration of its relevance. According to Dr. Toole, as he reiterated, the direct sound is the most important, and directivity is a secondary feature. If directivity comes into focus, room acoustics is as important, because there is a little bit of equivalence with the two.

 

[DanielT]

Bringing a speaker to market at that price is basically a work of art, so it doesn’t have a price you can rationalize. Didn’t we already agree that the price of art just isn’t something you can really adjudicate? The creativity lies in the absence of any reason, and for that very reason it cannot be criticized—it’s beyond critique by its own nature (pun intended).

I'm just into Hayek, claiming that "the marketplace" is logically the best (read: only) method for optimal allocation of resources. Even if "information" is sparse and distributed, believe it or not.

Well, now I'm no art expert but the price, for exemple the Børresen Acoustics M: $100,000/pair.
For a two-way bookshelf speaker is ridiculously high. The criteria for cost are therefore perhaps met BUT then the actual "artwork" itself. Looks like a regular speaker. Maybe good craftsmanship (the speaker box itself) but hardly art. Not in my eyes anyway.

The Børresen Acoustics M1 is a $100,000 2-way Monitor?!

The Børresen Acoustics M1 doesn’t look too different from other high-end two-way bookshelf speakers, but its $100,000 price tag suggests that there is more to them than meets the eye.

www.audioholics.com

 

[voodooless]

Well, now I'm no art expert but the price, for exemple the Børresen Acoustics M: $100,000/pair.
For a two-way bookshelf speaker is ridiculously high. The criteria for cost are therefore perhaps met BUT then the actual "artwork" itself. Looks like a regular speaker. Maybe good craftsmanship (the speaker box itself) but hardly art. Not in my eyes anyway.

The Børresen Acoustics M1 is a $100,000 2-way Monitor?!

The Børresen Acoustics M1 doesn’t look too different from other high-end two-way bookshelf speakers, but its $100,000 price tag suggests that there is more to them than meets the eye.

www.audioholics.com

That excludes the $ 4000 a pop speaker stands

 

[Heinrich]

Well, now I'm no art expert but the price, for exemple the Børresen Acoustics M: $100,000/pair.
For a two-way bookshelf speaker is ridiculously high. The criteria for cost are therefore perhaps met BUT then the actual "artwork" itself. Looks like a regular speaker. Maybe good craftsmanship (the speaker box itself) but hardly art. Not in my eyes anyway.

The Børresen Acoustics M1 is a $100,000 2-way Monitor?!

The Børresen Acoustics M1 doesn’t look too different from other high-end two-way bookshelf speakers, but its $100,000 price tag suggests that there is more to them than meets the eye.

www.audioholics.com

Sure, I was making fun of it, or would you expect affirmation for Hayek's ??? from a technical minded individual? His mantra is the 'marketplace' that Borresen referred to as decisive. Hayek claims religiously, that the ‘marketplace’ allocates resources optimally. From Mr. Borresen’s perspective, that may be true—after he has made a one-off sale. Retirement, eventually.

 

[DanielT]

That excludes the $ 4000 a pop speaker stands

And those speaker stands can hardly be considered art either.

Here, in my eyes, it starts to resemble art with these speakers:

 

[DanielT]

Sure, I was making fun of it, or would you expect affirmation for Hayek's ??? from a technical minded individual? His mantra is the 'marketplace' that Borresen referred to as decisive. Hayek claims religiously, that the ‘marketplace’ allocates resources optimally. From Mr. Borresen’s perspective, that may be true—after he has made a one-off sale. Retirement, eventually.

....I was making fun of it,...
I understand that.

I'll probably be careful not to get into a discussion about what defines art. I'm not really qualified to say anything about that.

 

[Mart68]

Most people here, presumably Erin also target the microphone directly at the speaker when taking the in-room response

I don't think Erin measures in room, he uses a Klippel NFS.

 

[SigbergAudio]

I think Erin also have made that observation that PIR is a quite ok predictor . And hopefully everyone knows that the bass range is mostly room interactions .

What did you think of the LS60 ? in which way have your speakers a different tonality if they are different tonaly, especially as you also makes coaxial speakers (ime it takes some time getting used to coaxials ) In dynamics your speaker seems to crush most

The LS60 sounded good and relatively tonally balanced. Certainly not bright. I'm sure many could live happily with it.

Here is Manta vs LS60 in the same room. Note that the more tidy bass for the Manta below 100hz is a result of EQ and subwoofer gain adjustment. Below 100hz is in part room dependent, and the bass level can be adjusted by the on-board DSP of the LS60 in a similar way as in a Sigberg system, so that can be adjusted to your liking. So while the bass looks "worse" with LS60 in the graph below, in practice something similar as the Manta graph could be achieved with the LS60 as well.

Not sure that we can read all that much into this. They're not super different tonality-wise. Manta avoids the midbass suckout. LS60 is not very powerful with regards to dynamic capacity compared to any of the Sigberg systems, but that is not very surprising and by design. Manta is also way more expensive.


Both measurements are average of individual left+right measurements and 1/6th octave smoothing.

 

[Heinrich]

I don't think Erin measures in room, he uses a Klippel NFS.

Lol, you've got many approvals for that notice. Sure, but is was about the confirmation of the PIR, as "predicted", versus the factual outcome.

I said: "Most people here, presumably Erin also target the microphone directly at the speaker when taking the in-room response."

The real one ...