Natural Sound NS17 Review (Speaker)

[3125b]

The woofer on this is about 213 pixels to 43 pixels for the tweeter, so about 4.95" (photo by Amir).
The JBL 305P (this photo: https://d1aeri3ty3izns.cloudfront.net/media/54/546881/1200/preview.jpg) for comparison i measured about 281 to 59 pixels, giving the woofer a 4.75" diameter when 5" are specified.
Granted, that's not a 100% accurate measurement, but 6.5" seems too far fetched.

 

[ctrl]

Not that I have found.

This is a real pity, since not only the step response but also the decay behavior could be studied in more detail with access to the impulse response and would open the prospect of many controversial discussions

 

[pierre]

Here are the results from automatic eq on this speaker: the preference score would jump from 4.9 to 6.1.

First is the EQ itself:

and the results on the spin then the pir:

EQ for Natural Sound NS17 computed from ASR data
Preference Score 4.9 with EQ 6.1
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.8
Dated: 2021-07-26-08:18:36

Preamp: -1.7 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc   823 Hz Gain -1.76 dB Q 0.56
Filter  2: ON PK Fc  2312 Hz Gain +1.88 dB Q 12.00
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  3140 Hz Gain -2.12 dB Q 3.54
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  2058 Hz Gain +1.20 dB Q 12.00
Filter  5: ON PK Fc  1161 Hz Gain +0.73 dB Q 12.00
Filter  6: ON PK Fc  1418 Hz Gain -1.51 dB Q 6.74
Filter  7: ON PK Fc  1794 Hz Gain -0.96 dB Q 12.00
Filter  8: ON PK Fc   341 Hz Gain +1.32 dB Q 3.94
Filter  9: ON PK Fc   410 Hz Gain -0.66 dB Q 12.00
Filter 10: ON PK Fc 14226 Hz Gain -0.82 dB Q 2.82
Filter 11: ON PK Fc   970 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 12.00
Filter 12: ON PK Fc   588 Hz Gain +1.28 dB Q 12.00
Filter 13: ON PK Fc  2379 Hz Gain +0.86 dB Q 12.00
Filter 14: ON PK Fc  1616 Hz Gain +0.69 dB Q 12.00
Filter 15: ON PK Fc  1984 Hz Gain +0.36 dB Q 12.00
Filter 16: ON PK Fc  1175 Hz Gain +0.66 dB Q 12.00
Filter 17: ON PK Fc   523 Hz Gain +0.68 dB Q 12.00
Filter 18: ON PK Fc   664 Hz Gain -0.53 dB Q 10.91
Filter 19: ON PK Fc   564 Hz Gain -0.31 dB Q 12.00
Filter 20: ON PK Fc  2543 Hz Gain -0.80 dB Q 12.00

Some details on how the various components of the score evolved:

          SPK FLT
 -----------------
 NBD  ON 0.51 0.36
 NBD  LW 0.42 0.23
 NBD PIR 0.40 0.28
 SM  PIR 0.64 0.82
 SM   SP 0.82 0.87
 LFX       38   37
 LFQ     0.74 0.74
 -----------------
 Score    4.9  6.1
 -----------------

 

[ctrl]

The woofer on this is about 213 pixels to 43 pixels for the tweeter, so about 4.95" (photo by Amir).
The JBL 305P (this photo: https://d1aeri3ty3izns.cloudfront.net/media/54/546881/1200/preview.jpg) for comparison i measured about 281 to 59 pixels, giving the woofer a 4.75" diameter when 5" are specified.
Granted, that's not a 100% accurate measurement, but 6.5" seems too far fetched.

The decisive factor is the diameter from half surround to half surround, which is about 12.5cm --> ~120cm² effective membrane area which is a standard 6'' driver.

 

[Maiky76]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Natural Sound (NS) Audio NS17 speaker. It was sent to me by their distributor, Aoshida Audio and costs US $2,300.

These speakers are designed and built in China. The latter is not unusual but the former is. The selection of finish and material on this sample seems first class:

View attachment 143444

You can see the gloss finished veneer better from the back:

View attachment 143445

The picture does not do it justice as far as the luxury feel it imparts. Alas, as you may be able to see, there is chip around the port which has been patched. And there is a foggy spot on the top left of the speaker. Don't know if this is limited to my sample or general defects/lack of quality control in building them.

To be honest, my first reaction when I was approached to test the NS17 was to say no. Figured they are mimicking the look of a high-end speaker but that there is no design involved there. A quick look at the product page changed that opinion and fast:

They are calibrating each sample manufactured in anechoic chamber??? I don't think there is any other speaker company doing that. They use the chamber for design but manufacturing QC is done elsewhere. Another unique thing here is distortion graphs directly from Klippel analyzer as I run them:

Alas, the scale on the top graph is way too large, making the frequency response look flatter than it is. Still, they should be commended for producing more measurements than I have seen any manufacturer produce including high-end professional monitors.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than an anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

I performed over 1000 measurement which resulted in error rate of about 1%.

NS Audio NS17 Measurements
Acoustic measurements can be grouped in a way that can be perceptually analyzed to determine how good a speaker is and how it can be used in a room. This so called spinorama shows us just about everything we need to know about the speaker with respect to tonality and some flaws:

View attachment 143446

I was impressed with the ruler flat in bass to lower midrange and again in upper treble. Unfortunately in between things get a bit messy with two broad peaks comprised of smaller variations. Near-field response gives some clues here but not a complete answer:

View attachment 143447

Port resonance is kept at lower frequency so it should not interfere as much as it does in other designs. There is a notch in woofer response.

The second issue which is visible easier in early window is the sudden narrowing of the tweeter response:

View attachment 143449

There is no waveguide so the tweeter starts to beam as soon as it takes over. Vertical dispersion has created a dip at 2.3 kHz as well.

Putting the two together we get a very unique predicted in-room frequency response:

View attachment 143450

Ideal response is a sloping down one. Here, we have a flat response and then the slope. What do you think this will sound like? Not an easy question to answer.

Looking at the 1000 to 3000 Hz response we see the disturbances in the middle:

View attachment 143452

Beamwidth graph shows the directivity issue:

View attachment 143454

Here is our colored directivity graphs:

View attachment 143455

View attachment 143456

As noted, you should sit at or above tweeter axis so you don't fall in the "eye" between 2 and 3 kHz and have more of a dip there.

A highlight of this speaker is the very low distortion in bass frequencies at 86 dBSPL:
View attachment 143458

Something is going on though between 1 and 2 kHz though:
View attachment 143460

There is a switch in the back that tailors the high frequency response. Here is the effect:

View attachment 143461

So looks like it does what it says.

Finally, impedance is reasonable at above 5 ohm:

View attachment 143463

I liked that no resonances are visible in there.

For those of you up to no good which keep asking me for "timing" graphs, here is the impulse response:
View attachment 143467

Don't say I never listen to you. While it is true that I don't, I don't want to hear it from you....

NS Audio NS17 Speaker Listening Test and Equalization
This speaker had me stomped for nearly 24 hours. I played it, it could handle tons of power. The sound was clean but bright sounding. I toggled the switch to -2 dB but that didn't help much. Tried to EQ down the two broad areas but in AB testing, I did not always prefer the equalized setting. After a few hours of listening and experimentation, I thought maybe it is me and not the speaker. To verify, I replaced the NS17 with Revel M16. Wow, was this a huge improvement. The sound was now warm, inviting, and just enjoyable. I went back and looked at the measurements of the M16, specifically the predicted in-room response:

We have a sloping down response and a bass hump around 100 Hz. I switched back to NS16 and dialed in the same hump:

View attachment 143466

That was it! Now the NS17 was also warm sounding and quite inviting. The response in NS17 is too flat up too flat and even peaky up to lower treble and hence the brightness. I suspect you could keep the bass the same and fix this and the upper mid-range but it was easier to just boost the bass.

Once there, the effortlessness of the NS17 showed its value as I cranked up the volume and enjoyed the tracks being played.

Conclusions
There is clearly good effort and engineering that has gone into the design of this speaker. They have the right tools to measure and optimize the drivers and overall design. I think smaller detailers are getting in the way such as not using a waveguide and/or having the tweeter way away from the woofer that is causing directivity errors in vertical direction. I confess that I don't have 100% confidence in my subjective evaluation. It was a challenge and I think I got to some place decent, but not going to swear by it. You have the data and you judge.

Overall, I am going to recommend the Natural Sound NS17 if you use equalization to impart a sloping down target.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Hi,





Here is my take on the EQ.


These EQ are anechoic EQ to get the speaker right before room integration. If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that usually not optional… see hints there: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...helf-speaker-review.11144/page-26#post-800725


The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 4.8
With Sub: 6.7

Spinorama with no EQ:
- Mid to too high
- one trough at 2.5k

Directivity:

EQ design:

I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 5.9
with sub: 7.7

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.2

Natural Sound NS17 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July262021-155352

Preamp: -1.1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 40.53,    0.00,    1.06
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 81.77,    -1.30,    1.46
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 428.93,    -1.84,    1.47
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 704.19,    -1.86,    3.10
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 958.91,    -2.88,    4.64
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1411.76,    -3.03,    5.40
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1785.07,    -2.24,    15.18
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 2320.05,    2.41,    7.32
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 2925.69,    -2.40,    2.08

Natural Sound NS17 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July262021-154336

Preamp: -1.2 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 40.53,    0.00,    1.06
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 82.77,    -1.30,    1.57
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 430.93,    -1.59,    0.99
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 700.19,    -1.86,    2.85
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 954.66,    -2.52,    5.64
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1409.76,    -3.03,    4.40
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 1773.26,    -1.72,    11.07
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 2317.05,    2.41,    7.49
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 3346.40,    -3.02,    1.44

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Nice improvements

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[DSJR]

Placing close to a rear wall (taking the port into account) may help bring the lower mids and upper bass up a little. I was told years back that our UK/European style brick and plaster homes have very different results in the bass to timber framed types which seemingly absorb more low down, but the lifted upper mids may not work so well in lively 'bare/minimalist# rooms?

I do have to say this speaker seems very expensive for a Chinese made model - I'd have suggested half the price myself. Got to add that prices (US and EU) of audio gear seems very skewed from before 2008 and I firmly believe prices were 're-adjusted' subsequently for other reasons and not just currency differences (probably another can-o-worms).

 

[PierreV]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Natural Sound (NS) Audio NS17 speaker. It was sent to me by their distributor, Aoshida Audio and costs US $2,300.

We have a sloping down response and a bass hump around 100 Hz. I switched back to NS16 and dialed in the same hump:
That was it! Now the NS17 was also warm sounding and quite inviting.

Interesting review, not really the speaker itself, but rather because we get some quantitative insight on the response you subjectively prefer. I am a bit of a bass lover myself for most music, so I can relate.

 

[daftcombo]

Another proof that PIR is more important than flat on-axis for living room speakers?

 

[thewas]

Another proof that PIR is more important than flat on-axis for living room speakers?

In my personal experience, which also corresponds to Toole's findings, both linear direct sound and smooth directivity PIR matter, whenever I equalise loudspeakers to smooth PIR which don't have smooth directivity they don't sound as good and neutral as ones where the smooth PIR is an automatic result of their linear direct sound and smooth directivity.

 

[MZKM]

It would be fair amount of hassle as I would have to create a fixed position for the speaker to sit to compare one against the other. NFS doesn't need this but I don't want to spend 3 hours measuring the second one.

Place speaker A somewhere and outline it in tape, measure FR sweep in REW (no windowing), replace with speaker B, measure in REW, export into Excel/Sheets/Numbers, graph the difference.

Doesn‘t matter that it’s not anechoic, as any room influence will be identical.

This is of course if you want to bother.

 

[daftcombo]

In my personal experience, which also corresponds to Toole's findings, both linear direct sound and smooth directivity PIR matter, whenever I equalise loudspeakers to smooth PIR which don't have smooth directivity they don't sound as good and neutral as ones where the smooth PIR is an automatic result of their linear direct sound and smooth directivity.

Yes, you are right and I should have mentionned that directivity needs to be exempt of error.

 

[Yevhen]

@amirm about your equalization in the bass region: what type of walls do you have in your listening room? Is there any option in Klippel software to show the estimated room response for the wooden/frame house and brick/stone?

I always experienced the lack of bass in my parents' wooden house but now in my current living room with thick brick walls, even with a decent amount of absorption panels I still need to plug the speaker's port. Even in the bookshelf 5" babies.

Would you consider reviewing some known (Revel?) speakers in 2-3 different rooms with different walls (bass absorption properties, for example, stone/brick basement vs wooden attic) and different sizes (office vs living room)? Would be nice to see how it affects the bass response and your subjective perception.

Here is the specification from Monitor Audion:

Frequency Response (-6 dB)
62 – 25,000 Hz (Free field)
40 – 30,000 Hz (In room)

https://www.monitoraudio.com/en/product-ranges/bronze/bronze-50/

 

[AudioSceptic]

It appears to be an exaggeration to claim that is a 6.5" woofer.

I know manufacturers often (nearly always) do this, but it looks a lot closer to a 5 1/4" woofer than 6.5".

See Google image search results here which shows lots of pics of this speaker next to a KEF LS50, where the drivers appear about the same size:

Google Image Search of Natural Sound NS17 woofer

Review of NS17 with pics comparing it to size of LS50

I've noticed that, with many manufacturers, the driver size quoted is the overall size, including the frame/chassis, whereas I think it should refer to just the actual cone. Is that just me?

 

[anphex]

People should be arrested for making speakers with sensitivity lower than 85dB.

If I remember correctly, low sensivity is a sign of heavily optimized crossovers. So lots of energy gets lost in the crossover circuitry but should increase frequency response, impulse, transition steepness and the like. Also since most amps perform best close at the steep clipping curve in this age of overpowered amps I see low sensivity as a plus. More noise and distortion gets "blocked". My NuVero 170 also have 85db/1w. Look at those beefy crossovers.

 

[thefsb]

Striking in that blurb is the way it assumes our unquestioning admiration for professionals. I, for one, do not believe that professional implies competent. Most of the great calamities of the last half century were given to us by professionals. Many of the lesser ones too.

 

[PatentLawyer]

Anyone aware of any? I can think of maybe two (Genelec? Can't recall the other at the moment...) that measure each before sending out, but not sure if it's anechoic.

Vandersteen, I believe.

 

[PKAudio]

No.
Overall loudspeaker sensitivity is given by the woofer. its size and impedance, and extension to lows and bafflestep compensation which determines overall sound balance. So the senstitivity is detemined by the woofer.
So it is possible to make 2way with 5inch woofer and 8ohm nominal impedance, but sensitivity will be below 85dB/2.83V/1m if it is supposed to play some bass.
Any loss in crossover leading to sensitivity loss is caused by primary coils in woofer crossover section. That is why large coild with thick wires are needed, to achieve low Rdc.
Heavily optimized crossover can still have 2coils in series woofer path and low loss, if low Rdc coils are used. Heavily optimized can be midrange and tweeter sections, or woofer breakups, but this normally does not have influence on achievable sensitivity in the loudspeaker as a whole.

If I remember correctly, low sensivity is a sign of heavily optimized crossovers. So lots of energy gets lost in the crossover circuitry but should increase frequency response, impulse, transition steepness and the like. Also since most amps perform best close at the steep clipping curve in this age of overpowered amps I see low sensivity as a plus. More noise and distortion gets "blocked". My NuVero 170 also have 85db/1w. Look at those beefy crossovers.

View attachment 143542

 

[uwotm8]

That was it! Now the NS17 was also warm sounding and quite inviting

It's quite interesting how, depending on what exact speaker we're talking about, equally measured 100 Hz bump being called bad/cheap trick or good (or even a needful like now).

 

[mhardy6647]

one might surmise that Yamaha wouldn't be too pleased with the nomenclature of this loudspeaker

Don't say I never listen to you. While it is true that I don't, I don't want to hear it from you....

Internet quote of the year, so far

 

[AudioSceptic]

one might surmise that Yamaha wouldn't be too pleased with the nomenclature of this loudspeaker


View attachment 143556View attachment 143555


Internet quote of the year, so far

I did wonder about that. Yamaha have used "Natural Sound" since the 70s and I wondered if they were able to register it as a TM or whatever.