While not ever hearing the BMR speakers, I have read that they are very, very good speakers.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)
- Thread starter sweetchaos
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #42
Thanks.
I wish someone would send in the R200 to Amir, seeing how good their quasi-anechoic spinorama is.
We already know Erin is getting the R100.
Yeah unfortunately I only had the spare R100 sitting around to send to Erin. Someone needs to buy the Wharfedale EVO4.1 off of Amir so he can afford it.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,335
- Likes
- 6,702
Important to note that KEF's measurements look to be much lower resolution than the NFS measurements. That error is likely still there in the KEF measurements, but the increased smoothing misses it.
Either way, it's a high q dip in an overall great response, so it won't be a huge issue in terms of audibility.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,335
- Likes
- 6,702
Revel F328Be was measured at a higher resolution(twice as many points iirc), which imo artificially lowers the score. In some sense, you kinda have to account for the measurement resolution. A lot of the manufacturer and non ASR/EAC(nfs) measurements are much more smoothed.
OP
Destination: Moon
Senior Member
This is probably another dumb question....or 2 but here goes:
Is the PS linear or subjective? By that I mean is the PS of 5.8 for a1500 dollar floor stander the same for a 5.8 - 600 dollar book shelf?
And comparing 2 high rated speakers, say the DBR 62 at a PS of 5.8 vs the Polk R200 at half a point higher. Is it 10 percent better? Is it worth trading up from the DBR since they are virtually the same price?
Not trolling, I'm trying to parse what all this in depth hard work, by so many people means.
Is the PS linear or subjective? By that I mean is the PS of 5.8 for a1500 dollar floor stander the same for a 5.8 - 600 dollar book shelf?
And comparing 2 high rated speakers, say the DBR 62 at a PS of 5.8 vs the Polk R200 at half a point higher. Is it 10 percent better? Is it worth trading up from the DBR since they are virtually the same price?
Not trolling, I'm trying to parse what all this in depth hard work, by so many people means.
More Dynamics Please
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I believe the overall review scores represent the sum or average of scores from multiple performance parameters so speakers with the same overall score will usually have a different balance of scores from the different parameters. If we have a personal preference favoring some performance areas over others then we need to look beyond the overall score to see how well the speakers perform in the areas that are most important to us.
Have you read the S807 review? Its basically glorified firewood and should hold no place in a list with recommendations.
No shit.
The S807 is junk. Personally, I wouldn't even put it in a list of recommendations. This is where looking at the score simply for the purposes of ranking stuff gets out of touch with reality.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
Thanks for the feedback. Removed the Jamo S807.
Tom C
Major Contributor
I think it’s really important for people to educate themselves as to what the preference score is before they attempt to apply it to a buying decision. It was not developed as a consumer’s guide to anything. It was more of a research tool to assist engineers in designing product that consumers would prefer. Of course there is overlap, but I think it’s best to consider it a helpful guide, and certainly not the only thing you need to know about a speaker before buying.
Seems a bit arbitrary.
For consistency’s sake you could omit all models scoring equal to or lower than 3.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #54
The preference score is mathematical calculation, nothing more.
No one is claiming it's the "One true ring that binds them all."
It's a metric, like many others, that we can use to judge a speakers performance in relation to another speaker.
It tells us if you compare two speakers, what's the probability that one speaker is more preferred than another.
It's a useful tool, in our tool-bag, to eliminate the men from the boys, or the good from the bad, or best from the worst.
It should theoretically go to 10 (assuming LFX of 14.5).
The best performing speaker that we know of is the Infinity IL60 (preference score of 8.1). It's discontinued though.
Second best performing speaker that we know of is the KEF Reference 5 (preference score of 7.6) is US$20,000/pair.
The worst performing speaker that we know of is the LYX SPA8PAS (preference score of -3.3), a $90/ea PA speaker.
Looking at the spinorama of these 2 speakers, without even computing the preference score, which one would you buy (ignoring the price)?
The Kef's, of course.
The preference score tells us the same.
In regards to what's the difference between a score of 5.0 vs 6.0, here's Dr Sean Olive's answer:
No one is claiming it's the "One true ring that binds them all."
It's a metric, like many others, that we can use to judge a speakers performance in relation to another speaker.
It tells us if you compare two speakers, what's the probability that one speaker is more preferred than another.
It's a useful tool, in our tool-bag, to eliminate the men from the boys, or the good from the bad, or best from the worst.
It should theoretically go to 10 (assuming LFX of 14.5).
The best performing speaker that we know of is the Infinity IL60 (preference score of 8.1). It's discontinued though.
Second best performing speaker that we know of is the KEF Reference 5 (preference score of 7.6) is US$20,000/pair.
The Kef's, of course.
The preference score tells us the same.
In regards to what's the difference between a score of 5.0 vs 6.0, here's Dr Sean Olive's answer:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #55
Yes, excellent idea. I was thinking of that earlier, but just wanted to compile this list first.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #56
Improvements:
- Removed preference score of lower than 3.0. Below this score, the level of performance is really not up to par with the rest of the speaker recommendations. So we can make this "line in the sand" as a requirement to make it on this list. As we test more speakers, their position will be filled with better performing speakers. In other words, this is mostly a temporary requirement that we can make until more speakers are tested.
- The following budget speakers were removed:
1. Jamo S807 (tower)
- Erin does NOT recommend this in his review.
2. Micca MB42X Mark III (bookshelf)
- Erin does NOT recommend this in his review.
3. Dayton Audio B652-AIR (bookshelf)
- Amir gave it the "headless panther" award and wrote: "This is embarrassing."
4. Pioneer SP-EC73 (center)
- Amir gave it the "questionable panther" award and wrote "Judging by what I see on objective measurements, I can't get excited about the Pioneer SP-EC73 so can't recommend it."
UPDATE: I've added what Erin's and Amir's final conclusions from each review was, so I don't feel bad about removing these at all.
- Removed preference score of lower than 3.0. Below this score, the level of performance is really not up to par with the rest of the speaker recommendations. So we can make this "line in the sand" as a requirement to make it on this list. As we test more speakers, their position will be filled with better performing speakers. In other words, this is mostly a temporary requirement that we can make until more speakers are tested.
- The following budget speakers were removed:
1. Jamo S807 (tower)
- Erin does NOT recommend this in his review.
2. Micca MB42X Mark III (bookshelf)
- Erin does NOT recommend this in his review.
3. Dayton Audio B652-AIR (bookshelf)
- Amir gave it the "headless panther" award and wrote: "This is embarrassing."
4. Pioneer SP-EC73 (center)
- Amir gave it the "questionable panther" award and wrote "Judging by what I see on objective measurements, I can't get excited about the Pioneer SP-EC73 so can't recommend it."
UPDATE: I've added what Erin's and Amir's final conclusions from each review was, so I don't feel bad about removing these at all.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #57
Should I do the same for actives?
The under US$100/pair price point is commonly cited on reddit (for example) as the requirement for their budget.
If I do the same, then all 3 recommendations are now dropped.
Under US$100/pair:
Thoughts?
The under US$100/pair price point is commonly cited on reddit (for example) as the requirement for their budget.
If I do the same, then all 3 recommendations are now dropped.
Under US$100/pair:
| Recommendation | PS | LFX | Amplifiers | |
| #1 | Mackie CR3-X (Erin) | 2.3 | 67 | 50 (Erin) |
| #2 | Edifier R1280T (Amir) | 1.9 | 55 | 21 & 21 |
| #3 | Presonus Eris E3.5 (Erin) | 1.5 | 66 | 25 (Erin) |
Thoughts?
If anybody was looking at those 3, I would strongly encourage them to grab the Neumi BS5P instead. Perhaps the lowest budget category will have to be defined by the cheapest product with minimum acceptable performance.
More Dynamics Please
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The issue seems to be the lack of candidates in some categories resulting in low performers being listed whereas in categories where many speakers have been tested some high performers that may fall just short of the cutline don't get listed.
Yes. Actives don't have an excuse here.
Similar threads
