Michael Børresen explains himself?

[Mnyb]

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.
View attachment 495090

A yes i use dual subs for my LS60 and room EQ via ROON or WiiM ( until a thunderstorm killed the WiiM and dozen other things i owned ) and they are bit limited dynamically , but I knew that goin in as i don't listen at wallpaper removing levels
A good compromise for my use case , I do have a low Q bass shelf from ca 230 Hz with a mild lift to taste

A factor when choosing them was such things as local representation , they are everywhere nowadays ( the active kef's )

Had a college many years ago that where into big cerwinvega's , potted flowers moved around in his house ...

 

[Mart68]

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 ...

I've not watched all of Erin's reviews but he does not usually take an in-room measurement. He does not measure the Borresen speaker in room.

However the problems/idiosyncrasies of the speaker that he observes when listening do show up both on the anechoic and on the PIR.

 

[Heinrich]

o/k, let's clarify.

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

How was that observation made? And then the following ...

I've not watched all of Erin's reviews but he does not usually take an in-room measurement. He does not measure the Borresen speaker in room.
However the problems/idiosyncrasies of the speaker that he observes when listening do show up both on the anechoic and on the PIR.

Erin once compared PIR to a real measurement. He commented, that the match was pretty nice. I think it was just confirmation bias. PIR is WAY overestimated anyway.

 

[kyuu]

Erin once compared PIR to a real measurement. He commented, that the match was pretty nice. I think it was just confirmation bias. PIR is WAY overestimated anyway.

No, this seems to be you rejecting evidence that doesn't conform to your predetermined beliefs. It's not just Erin, I've seen multiple measurements presented here where the actual measured in-room response was extremely close to the speaker's PIR (above Schroeder, of course).

I've also seen this with my own speakers: the measured response as presented by Dirac Live was nearly a perfect match for their PIR (and this is despite PIR not being intended for in-wall/ceiling speakers).

 

[Heinrich]

No, this seems to be you rejecting evidence that doesn't conform to your predetermined beliefs.

Sure: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ubw8xeqjeiazwg2/PIR vs MIR.png?dl=0
Full review: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_r3/

But, why argue against ad hominem suspicions? I'm clueless, your evidence.

 

[Mnyb]

Huh how about using hitchens razor ? PIR stands for predicted in room response and according to many sources it actually works ? There some actual science behind that.
Otherwise one would not have constructed this metric , there are certainly ( without knowing actually ) limitations and corner cases all over ...

So if one thinks its useless prove that with science instead ? it would be utterly pointless for me or anyone else believing this is a valid metric to search for evidence .
The burden is on those who have a contrary point of view .

Sorry for mentioning Erin of the cuff ? I evidently provoked something ? I'll go to some other tread

 

[Mart68]

there are certainly ( without knowing actually ) limitations and corner cases all over ...

Exactly - I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. Depends how close the actual room is to the model it uses to make the prediction. I assume that's a reasonably sized rectangular box so it won't be far off a lot of rooms.

EDIT explanation of how the model is constructed here (it's a conglomerate of 15 different rooms)

Klippel Near-field Scanner - room reflections and the estimated in-room response

Can anyone tell me how room reflections are calculated with the Klippel? To be specific, the combined effect of reflections will be greatly determined by the distance of the speaker from the listener in relation to the distance of reflecting surfaces. This is going to greater then just a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[a4eaudio]

...So if one thinks its useless prove that with science instead ? it would be utterly pointless for me or anyone else believing this is a valid metric to search for evidence .
The burden is on those who have a contrary point of view .

That's not how science works. If someone believes they have a valid metric, the burden is on them to prove it.

Example of absurdity: I think the moon is made of green cheese. It would be utterly pointless for me or anyone else believing the moon is made of green cheese to search for evidence demonstrating that, in fact, the moon is made of green cheese. The burden of proof is on those who have a contrary point of view.

 

[Heinrich]

Huh how about using hitchens razor ? PIR stands for predicted in room response and according to many sources it actually works ? There some actual science behind that.

Science is not about making loudspeakers ;-) Not all trust in the value of PIR as much as some other, especially the inventors. The latter tell in the pdf document named above, that there are uncertain restrictions. Personal judgement, and not at least a test of-- prediction, for specific rooms is inevitable. This sounds so logical to me, that I can not understand, why there is so much talking back.

We have vastly different rooms with individual enterior decors, the amateur's microphone arrangement (when equalizing to target w/ REW) usually differs from what the inventors used to adjust their model, so many ifs and thens.

Of course, if the directivity is really off, then PIR will tell clearly. And that's what it is worth. But to base a speaker evaluation on PIR in minute detail is just silly.

To mention Erin's evaluation was a good thing. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ubw8xeqjeiazwg2/PIR vs MIR.png?dl=0

It shows that the PIR can err a lot. The tonal balance in-room of the speaker under test deviates severely from PIR. Erin explains it with the microphone's position ... at the listening position And there are unexpected wiggles too, plus excessive treble. Deviations at an amount, that Erin usually critisizes. So, in this case, the PIR mislead the expectations.

 

[AdrianusG]

View attachment 494022

OMG, i thought those 105.000 Euro speakers were a crime, i stand corrected!

 

[hch]

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.

Actually, very few people buy his speakers. Most studio monitors sell way more than his speakers, even in the home audio segment, where they are not marketed. Audio group Denmark stays afloat in a market where a high price is an important part of the product, but looking at their numbers they are not all that profitable.

 

[multichannel_guy]

Let's see, should I listen to someone who designs poor measuring, expensive loudspeakers but has nothing to substantiate his statement besides his own opinion, or decades of research (plus my own experience) demonstrating that we do, in fact, prefer a flat measuring loudspeaker. Tough decision.

But if people can reject overwhelming evidence of things like a spherical Earth or germ theory based on their personal feelings, it shouldn't be surprising they can do the same for audio.

He should release 2 versions of his models, a regular Borresen version and a Borresen ASR-Flat Response version and put it side by side on display with his dealers.

You and your kin could be put in blindfolds before you are walked into the room. Wouldn't it be such great fun to see what you and your kin pick as your preferred sound, version when you're in a blindfold and on camera?

 

[JSmith]

preferred sound

This is more achieved by EQ, placement etc.

Does an artist start with a pre-coloured canvas?


JSmith

 

[Mart68]

He should release 2 versions of his models, a regular Borresen version and a Borresen ASR-Flat Response version and put it side by side on display with his dealers.

You and your kin could be put in blindfolds before you are walked into the room. Wouldn't it be such great fun to see what you and your kin pick as your preferred sound, version when you're in a blindfold and on camera?

I'd be fine doing that and I'd even bet money on which one I'd pick.

 

[voodooless]

He should release 2 versions, a regular Borresen version and a Borresen ASR-Flat Response version and put it side by side on display with his dealers.

You and your kin could be put in blindfolds before you are walked into the room. Wouldn't it be such great fun to see what you and your kin pick as your preferred sound, version when you're in a blindfold and on camera?

Isn't very clear what would happen? Those damn Borresen speakers tested by Erin got a 2.0 preference rating. That means that with statistical certainty, most people will not like these speakers. ASR members will be no different.

I just tried to remake the rough response of the speaker tested by Erin with some EQ. It sounds horrible and will be super easy to pick out

Can we then please have Michael also double blind test one of his Anuz cables and an Aavik DAC against an Apple dongle?

 

[kemmler3D]

I'd be fine doing that and I'd even bet money on which one I'd pick.

Yep. I wonder if he thinks it's hard to tell when a speaker is this jacked up?

 

[smowry]

He should not have taken a concept that was developed in 2008 by an R&D Transducer Engineer working independently in Phuket Thailand that was subsequently published in 2009 for the purpose of placing that concept into the public domain (Prior Art) such that anyone was free to use it and then claim he invented that concept.

Above is a 30mm Be dome Almost Air Core Tweeter prototype sample Circa 2008.

This was not a butterfly (quasi-random) assembly, rather it was a rear pin gauged assembly.

https://pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archi.../Mowry_Steve/Air_Core_Tweeter_Magnet_Assy.pdf

Note that the client that help fund the development of the Almost Air Core Tweeter died in 2017. Fortunately, he missed Borresen's antics.

Above is the Patented Borresen Midbass complete with the "Barbie" spider.

This transducer assembly could also be pin gauged from the rear.

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ee/58/7f/2bcce6b865b6e7/US10993035.pdf

The claims in US10993035 tell all!