Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

[sweetchaos]

Maybe separate? lists for people who can use PEQs (which for example is very easy and free with a PC as a source) would be sensible too, as especially some of the lower priced loudspeakers can quite be transformed with them?

I've thought about it.
But the whole list will need to be duplicated and ranked again for every price point...I mean it's doable, but will make me some time.
Preference score with EQ is completely different than just the preference score, so the ranking will be completely different.

 

[lherrm]

I've thought about it.
But the whole list will need to be duplicated and ranked again for every price point...I mean it's doable, but will make me some time.
Preference score with EQ is completely different than just the preference score, so the ranking will be completely different.

In the end, that probably should be a dynamic table with filters (active/passive, EQ/noEQ, price range).

 

[sweetchaos]

In the end, that probably should be a dynamic table with filters (active/passive, EQ/noEQ, price range).

The forum doesn't allow dynamic tables.

Are you saying you want me to go to Google Spreadsheets...kind of what I did with my "Subwoofer Comparison" spreadsheet?
Because I can do a lot more columns for adding many more metrics...if I think about it.

 

[lherrm]

The forum doesn't allow dynamic tables.

Are you saying you want me to go to Google Spreadsheets...kind of what I did with my "Subwoofer Comparison" spreadsheet?

That's a shame (but understandable for security reasons).
I think it would save you time to maintain a single spreadsheet with filters rather than these 2 (or 3) posts indeed.
But it's true it's could be easier to read the thread's first post than going to the sheet and filter.
But it's your time being used.

 

[sweetchaos]

If I'm going to do this, I would be creating 2 more threads (Active Speakers with EQ, Passive Speakers with EQ) and then people will be jumping between all 4 threads, depending on what they know they need.
The benefit for everyone is that it's quite easy to pick an recommendation from any one of these threads, but they need to know ahead of time whether you want active, or active+peq, or passive, or passive+peq.
If they want to compare between lists, it becomes challenging.
For me, maintaining all 4 lists will be quite a bit of work.

Alternatively, in a single spreadsheet, it becomes much easier to maintain (for me), plus the user can jump around between active, passive, and PEQ/no-PEQ, and various price points.
In addition, I can begin to add much more metrics, like I did with my 'subwoofer comparison' spreadsheet. Things like dimensions, weight, etc.
Most bang-for-buck speaker for a certain volume? Haha.

Ahh, decisions, decisions.

 

[Amplifier dude]

You need to add multichannel DSP amps and their performance as well

 

[sweetchaos]

Right now, the limitation with my "active/passive speaker recommendation" threads is that it's limited to US market, and those speakers that are currently sold at major resellers.
I'm not counting the hundred more speakers that we have spinorama for, and a lot of which aren't even sold in US anymore, but sold elsewhere around the world.
By going with a spreadsheet, I'm not limited to this restriction and the number of speakers grows substantially.
Of course, with this spreadsheet, users will still be able to pick speakers that are currently sold in the US, so at least they won't be overwhelmed by too many discontinued speakers or speakers not sold in the US, for example.

 

[lherrm]

If I'm going to do this, I would be creating 2 more threads (Active Speakers with EQ, Passive Speakers with EQ) and then people will be jumping between all 4 threads, depending on what they know they need.
The benefit for everyone is that it's quite easy to pick an recommendation from any one of these threads, but they need to know ahead of time whether you want active, or active+peq, or passive, or passive+peq.
If they want to compare between lists, it becomes challenging.
For me, maintaining all 4 lists will be quite a bit of work.

Alternatively, in a single spreadsheet, it becomes much easier to maintain (for me), plus the user can jump around between active, passive, and PEQ/no-PEQ, and various price points.
In addition, I can begin to add much more metrics, like I did with my 'subwoofer comparison' spreadsheet. Things like dimensions, weight, etc.
Most bang-for-buck speaker for a certain volume? Haha.

Ahh, decisions, decisions.

My advice : make it easy for you and more versatile for users => spreadsheet.
But you might want to let the spreadsheet clean (not gathered with too many data) and easy to navigate through.

 

[sweetchaos]

Feel free to give me feedback in the meanwhile. I need to sleep on this decision.

 

[Tom C]

I agree with Iherrm. You have already been quite generous with your time and energy. A spreadsheet will be more expedient for you, and more flexible for users. I find your subwoofer spreadsheet easy to use and very, very useful.

 

[squeedle]

The site already has the "review index". Maybe Amir can make a searchable, filterable index for your data as well.

 

[Sancus]

My main problem with doing "score with EQ" is that the methodology is questionable. A lot of cheaper speakers have too much unit variance to build highly precise filters with measurements of 1 unit. And the higher end ones need less, so you often end up with a bunch of tiny corrections that are very likely to be within margins of error. In both cases you can make things worse.

I'm not saying you can't improve speakers with EQ, you can, but the resulting scores are sketchy.

Plus, it does exacerbate the issue that already exists where people get the idea that if you take a small low scoring speaker, add a sub(and now EQ), then all of a sudden it's the same as a big high scoring speaker when that's not true at all.

There are too many caveats to just recommend people buy speakers based on those numbers without doing any of their own research into what it all means.

 

[flipflop]

My main problem with doing "score with EQ" is that the methodology is questionable. A lot of cheaper speakers have too much unit variance to build highly precise filters with measurements of 1 unit. And the higher end ones need less, so you often end up with a bunch of tiny corrections that are very likely to be within margins of error. In both cases you can make things worse.

I'm not saying you can't improve speakers with EQ, you can, but the resulting scores are sketchy.

Unit-to-unit variation and measurement error also affect the pre-EQ scores.

Plus, it does exacerbate the issue that already exists where people get the idea that if you take a small low scoring speaker, add a sub(and now EQ), then all of a sudden it's the same as a big high scoring speaker when that's not true at all.

Please elaborate.

 

[Sancus]

Unit-to-unit variation and measurement error also affect the pre-EQ scores.

Yes, you're missing my point though. If you use an EQ profile for a low-end passive speaker, on the speaker that Amir measured, that's totally fine and will work great.

If you use his data on your speaker, that's a different story, you no longer know how well it will work.

Please elaborate.

In what sense?

 

[flipflop]

Yes, you're missing my point though. If you use an EQ profile for a low-end passive speaker, on the speaker that Amir measured, that's totally fine and will work great.

If you use his data on your speaker, that's a different story, you no longer know how well it will work.

The was the point of the first paragraph. I was addressing the second paragraph: "I'm not saying you can't improve speakers with EQ, you can, but the resulting scores are sketchy."

In what sense?

You're saying that it's "not true at all" that a "small low scoring speaker" with sub+EQ is "the same as a big high scoring speaker".
I would like to know why you don't think that's true.

 

[Sancus]

The was the point of the first paragraph. I was addressing the second paragraph: "I'm not saying you can't improve speakers with EQ, you can, but the resulting scores are sketchy."

Because the calculated score is what you'd get if you corrected Amir's speaker with Amir's data. As soon as you use a different unit, that score is no longer accurate at all, and you can't predict what the score would be since you don't know what effect the EQ will have. It will probably still make it better, but not as much, and there is a chance it will make it worse.

You're saying that it's "not true at all" that a "small low scoring speaker" with sub+EQ is "the same as a big high scoring speaker".
I would like to know why you don't think that's true.

I don't see much reason to re-litigate the problems with the score in this thread, but if you add a sub to a small speaker you don't improve it much above the sub crossover. You're never going to get that mid-bass chest slam out of a KH80+sub that you'd get from a Genelec 8361A, for example.

The 'with sub' score additionally assumes a perfectly integrated sub with very low extension. That's highly unrealistic, especially with cheaper speakers, because not only is the sub going to cost more than your speakers but the crossover isn't simple either unless you spend even more on a solution with a high quality automatic integration.

Basically I think it's misleading to say you can take a cheap small speaker, EQ it, add a sub, and it'll be the same sound as a larger more expensive speaker just because the scores are equal. It's very unlikely, in fact.

 

[flipflop]

Because the calculated score is what you'd get if you corrected Amir's speaker with Amir's data. As soon as you use a different unit, that score is no longer accurate at all

The calculated pre-EQ score is what you'd get if you do not correct Amir's speaker with Amir's data. As soon as you use a different unit, that score is no longer accurate at all.

if you add a sub to a small speaker you don't improve it much above the sub crossover.

You get rid of potentially audible distortion by putting less stress on the woofer.

You're never going to get that mid-bass chest slam out of a KH80+sub that you'd get from a Genelec 8361A, for example.

There is no good reason to believe that the mid-bass of the KH80 and 8361A would differ significantly if the playback level was the same.

The 'with sub' score additionally assumes a perfectly integrated sub with very low extension. That's highly unrealistic, especially with cheaper speakers, because not only is the sub going to cost more than your speakers but the crossover isn't simple either unless you spend even more on a solution with a high quality automatic integration.

The 'with sub' score is unrealistic because the sub and its implementation are expensive?

 

[squeedle]

Not everything needs to be an debate.

 

[Sancus]

There is no good reason to believe that the mid-bass of the KH80 and 8361A would differ significantly if the playback level was the same.

Now you're going into 'arguing with Amir and the known limitations of the score' territory, and the 100th argument about that is not a useful addition to this thread. I've made my points, I'll leave it at that. It's totally up to @sweetchaos what he wants to do in his threads.

 

[sweetchaos]

EQ'ing speakers is an interesting topic, no doubt.

Dr Sean Olive mentioned EQ'ing speakers at 1hr 08min 47sec

From the video:

If the speaker doesn't have smooth or constant directivity, you can't equalize for that. If the speaker has a resonance on axis and the dip in the sound power, you can't come up with an EQ that will fix both.

I don't know enough how either @pierre or @Maiky76 's algorithm for coming up with PEQ's for a speaker works.
Do these EQ algorithms take Dr Sean Olive's statement above into account? Anyone know?