Polk Reserve R200: Spinorama and measurements (a really nice surprise!)

[daftcombo]

The white version is even nicer:

 

[daftcombo]

The bunching and directivity error is very smimilar to Aria 906 IMO (also 6.5'').

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-aria-906-speaker-review.14085/

 

[Desmo]

I don't really know what the difference is. The above Kali IN-5 has a maximum recommendend listening distance of 2.2 meters.
Adam Audio has monitors for near, mid and farfield listening. And I would think a nearfield monitor is designed to work close together
where farfield monitors are designed to be further apart.

 

[beaRA]

Even the R100 with the smaller woofer is crossed at a lower 2700Hz... strange. What do you think about the directivity tradeoff of the 2-way R500 with 5.25in midwoofers crossed at 2500Hz vs the 3-way R700 with 6.5in midrange crossed at 2700Hz?

 

[napilopez]

Thanks for the review! But I would rather spend the same money (and save on the amplification) buying a Kali IN-5 instead.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kali-in-5-studio-monitor-review.22487/

Is it just because of the DI curves? The Kali's measures (assuming comparing across measurements sources is reliable in this case) don't look particularly better to me. Quantitatively, it also loses on preference score (though I'm dubious about whether that's comparable between quasi-anechoic and NFS measurements with two decent speakers), at a 6.3 vs a 5.3. I've not heard the Kali though so I have no clue, and they are certainly close enough that I wouldn't be confident declaring a clear winner.

The Kali has better overall direcitivty but horizontal directivity is closer, and the Polk has the potential advantage of being a little wider.

Honestly looking at the Kali's spin just makes me more impressed that Polk managed to get it so flat sans DSP for the price. That said, I hope Amir or Erin manage to get their hands on one soon. Despite a solid track record with matching measurements to anechoic results, I'm always a little nervous being the first person to post a spin for a speaker

(Also the reserve looks much better =])

I see this often on ASR. The measurements of a nearfield monitor are used as competition to the measurements of a farfield monitor.
It always confuses me a bit. Seems to me that a nearfield montor has a completely different use than a farfield monitor.

It is a good question, specially since the near field monitor has better directivity, in theory the room reflections of far field should be better than those of the far field speaker with more errors in directivity.

I don't really know what the difference is. The above Kali IN-5 has a maximum recommendend listening distance of 2.2 meters.
Adam Audio has monitors for near, mid and farfield listening. And I would think a nearfield monitor is designed to work close together
where farfield monitors are designed to be further apart.

That's because, as noted by @echopraxia the whole studio monitor and home speaker shtick is 90% marketing.

That's not to say nearfield monitors aren't designed with nearfield use in consideration. For example, it's important that such a speaker have good driver integration at short distances, which is why you don't usually see towers are nearfield monitors.

But 99% of the time there's absolutely nothing stopping such a monitor from being used farfield other than potential SPL limitations. But these are usually not so different from pushing a speaker with a similarly sized woofer to its limits. It's just that ina a studio people tend to listen much louder than the average home setup.

 

[napilopez]

The bunching and directivity error is very smimilar to Aria 906 IMO (also 6.5'').

View attachment 131099

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/focal-aria-906-speaker-review.14085/

Yeah, it's pretty common in wider directivity designs, but again its usually due to the verticals. If we isolate the horizontals we've got:

Similar story for the polk:

Still not perfect but as I always say, the one big issue with the spinorama is the lack of separation between horizontal and vertical directivity. Most of the time people talk about directivity, they're talking about it in terms of soundstage and imaging quality, and that really seems to be mostly in the horizontals. For example, the Revel M106 doesn't fare much better despite the waveguide:

Of course, you can then get more granular and look at the ER horizontal breakdown or individual angles, but just looking at the overall horizontal seems to coincide with my impressions of soundstage usually.

------------------------------------------------------

One that I want to illustrate about my interpretations of the spinorama is that the total DI curves aren't actually very important for the type of in-depth assessment we do here, except for EQ-ability. It is more important that both the on-axis/LW and ER/PIR be assessed independently -- not by their relationship to one another. If you look at the R200s LW alone, it is fantastic. If you look at the PIR alone, it is great, certainly comparable to some of the best speakers measured here.

If you read the Olive preference paper part 2, you'll see that the DI curves were found to have little correlation with user preference. "The two directivity indices generally yield poor correlations regardless of which metric is applied, with the exception of NBD."

Of course, the DI curves are defined by the LW and ER, but all that really tells us is that in the very best possible speakers, the DI curves would be smooth. But short of complete optimization of the spinorama, which very few non-coaxial speakers actually have, it is better to look at the direct sound and off-axis curves separately and independently.

For example, a speaker can achieve a decent score by having a very good PIR even if it has a mediocre on axis. Likewise, a speaker can have a perfect on-axis and a mediocre PIR.

In the case of the Polk R200, even if the relationship between the on-axis and PIR isn't perfect due to some bunching in the presence region at 5kish, both the on-axis and PIR perform strongly when assessed separately, which is why it scores so highly. And separate from the preference score studies, which did not look at horizontal data separately from the verticals, we know from other research that the horizontal data is far more important for assessing soundstage performance, and that we want smooth performance here for decent imaging. The R200 performs well here too.

Let's look at it another way: What if the R200's ER/PIR/SP dipped in the presence region instead of rising a little? (And let's assume it was entirely due to the verticals) The DI curves would be prettier, but the score probably wouldn't change much, and the speaker probably wouldn't actually sound any better.

This is why I find it invaluable that spinorama data include a horizontal component or be accompanied by a more detailed horizontal breakdown. Which luckily it usually is in the case of Me, Erin, Amir, and Audioholics.

In the Spinorama's existing form, there is no way for us to know if anomalies in the DI curves are due to the horizontal data or the vertical data, other than making some educated guesses based on the speaker design and the difference between the SPDI and ERDI, as they weigh verticals differently (if the SPDI is worse than the ERDI, it usually means the verticals are to blame). The spin is super useful, but again, it could use the addition of a horizontal ERDI or DI =] if it really wants to be an all-in-one image. Which luckily, Harman has started to include recently, so I hope it is a change considered for CTA-2034B

P.S. This isn't to say vertical data isn't important at all. There's just a lot less conclusive research about it. I suspect that lackluster vertical data contributes to per-room variability a decent amount.

 

[Desmo]

Even the R100 with the smaller woofer is crossed at a lower 2700Hz... strange. What do you think about the directivity tradeoff of the 2-way R500 with 5.25in midwoofers crossed at 2500Hz vs the 3-way R700 with 6.5in midrange crossed at 2700Hz?

The R500 and R600 are actual 2.5 way speakers.

 

[mhardy6647]

Not a lot of snob appeal with Polk’s offerings...

Oh, I would have to disagree. As a Hoppie -- and, like many Hoppies, an early adopter -- I have a long-lasting appreciation of Matt Polk's wares (and, yeah, I realize he has long since cashed out & retired... but, still...)
"Polk" is OK with me, and I am thrilled to hear that the R200 is a high-value product.
OK, semi-thrilled... 'cause now I want a pair.

 

[beaRA]

The R500 and R600 are actual 2.5 way speakers.

The Crutchfield listings claim 2-way for both of them. I can't find a definitive answer on the Polk site, but only one crossover frequency is listed. Can you direct me to the crossover information you found?

 

[thewas]

The spin is super useful, but again, it could use the addition of a horizontal ERDI or DI =] if it really wants to be an all-in-one image. Which luckily, Harman has started to include recently, so I hope it is a change considered for CTA-2034B

Very true, I would like to have separate horizontal and vertical directivity indexes, as many compensate flaws in one by the other but this in my experience doesn't sound as good as a loudspeaker were both are flawless.
By the way could you maybe also plot your above very interesting Aria, R200 and M106 horizontal and total comparisons all together in 2 plots?

 

[Desmo]

The Crutchfield listings claim 2-way for both of them. I can't find a definitive answer on the Polk site, but only one crossover frequency is listed. Can you direct me to the crossover information you found?

A couple of reviewers weren's sure either so they contacted Polk. The designer confirmed that they are 2.5 way.
That beeing said. I can't find the crossover information either. Maybe worth investigating further.

 

[napilopez]

Very true, I would like to have separate horizontal and vertical directivity indexes, as many compensate flaws in one by the other but this in my experience doesn't sound as good as a loudspeaker were both are flawless.
By the way could you maybe also plot your above very interesting Aria, R200 and M106 horizontal and total comparisons all together in 2 plots?

Yeah it's interesting, and it's something I'd like to further investigate.
But it makes sense that optimizing both vertical and horizontal would be better of course. After all, we talk alot about horizontals and verticals, but speakers radiate in all directions and rooms aren't perfectly flat sided or have the same dimensions.

That's also why I added at the end of my big post that I suspect having better verticals contributes to less room-to-room or positioning variability. With uneven vertical response the sound is more likely to change based on positioning than a speaker in which both the horizontals and verticals are even. This is especially true because if one looks at the early reflections breakdown, the verticals make a much bigger contribution per angle. Only 6 vertical angles (not counting H/V 0º) are responsible for 40% of the ER curve. Whereas with the horizontals, every angle makes a contribution, and though some are weighted more heavily, it tends to average out.

So with varying ceiling heights and whatnot, bad vertical directivity means the sound is more prone to change. from room to room.

 

[ooheadsoo]

A couple of reviewers weren's sure either so they contacted Polk. The designer confirmed that they are 2.5 way.
That beeing said. I can't find the crossover information either. Maybe worth investigating further.

Highly unlikely to be a TMM 2 way - there would be massive comb filtering from all woofers playing up into the high frequencies.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Well dang. Being a long time Polk fan, I am oddly tempted by these, even years after moving on. As if I need another pair of bookshelf speakers around here.

These seems to indicate they are doing things right...

 

[richard12511]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 6.3
With Sub: 8.3

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very Nice
• Probably better 10deg off-axis
• no Waveguide => flare off axis in the tweeter range can be seen on the DI
• Does not need EQ really

View attachment 131056
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: 6.1
with sub: 8.1

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.5

Polk R200 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
May212021-141848

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 39.5 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.03
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 88.5 Hz Gain -2.13 dB Q 0.82
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 992 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 5000 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 3.87
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 12470 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 2.82

Polk R200 APO EQ 96000Hz
May212021-141331

Preamp: -0 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 35 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 0.96
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 90 Hz Gain -1.82 dB Q 0.72
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1202 Hz Gain -0.88 dB Q 2.27
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 7114 Hz Gain -1.38 dB Q 1.86
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 7408 Hz Gain 0.94 dB Q 4.16
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 12901 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 2.37

View attachment 131051

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 131055

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 131054

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 131052

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 131053

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Does not need EQ
View attachment 131050

Damn, 6.3/8.3 before EQ, these are some of the best we've ever measured by score? I don't think any comparable Revel/JBL even get that high(going purely by memory).

 

[richard12511]

Thanks for the review! But I would rather spend the same money (and save on the amplification) buying a Kali IN-5 instead.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kali-in-5-studio-monitor-review.22487/

For multichannel HT, passive actually saves you money(since amplification is free and pre-outs aren't).

2 channel though it makes sense. Still, these do look to measure a bit better than the Kalis, which really surprised me.

 

[richard12511]

That LW is one of the flattest I've ever seen. The on axis treble tilt kinda hides it a bit, but we know that the LW is more important. Very impressive.

 

[richard12511]

Other than marketing labels, what is the difference? If it measures similarly well, it should sound similarly good in far field. The only differences that I’d expect might be maximum SPL capabilities but I don’t know if we have evidence to believe either one of these is better at that.

To my eye Polk LW is considerably better, while the Kali has much less directivity error(great waveguide).

 

[napilopez]

Damn, 6.3/8.3 before EQ, these are some of the best we've ever measured by score? I don't think any comparable Revel/JBL even get that high(going purely by memory).

I mean there's of course the caveat that my measurements really shouldn't be directly compared to Amirs and Erins on a numerical basis. Four issues come to mind:

1) I'm human and I make mistakes/am not as consistent as the NFS; I have to set up my rig anew every time I measure speakers
2) Small reflections in my setup show up as squiggles in my frequency response, so sometimes my measurements likely score worse than Amirs. I suspect the R200 is actually a little smoother than I measured above 1kHz
3) Any narrow/high Q deviations in the low mids will be obscured, so sometimes my measurements score higher. Wouldn't be surprised if this one had maybe one or two smaller resonances in the low mids that don't show up clearly in my measurements.
4) I might've gotten the bass summation wrong

Still, if the speaker measures that differently from an NFS result, then I'm not doing my job right. I'd be very surprised if the R200 got more than a point lower in an NFS test.

The Revel M105 got an 8.2 w/sub by the way. The KEF R3 got a 6.5/8.2, and I believe is the best of the passive bookshelves.

 

[richard12511]

I mean there's of course the caveat that my measurements really shouldn't be directly compared to Amirs and Erins on a numerical basis. Four issues come to mind:

1) I'm human and I make mistakes/am not as consistent as the NFS; I have to set up my rig anew every time I measure speakers
2) Small reflections in my setup show up as squiggles in my frequency response, so sometimes my measurements likely score worse than Amirs. I suspect the R200 is actually a little smoother than I measured above 1kHz
3) Any narrow/high Q deviations in the low mids will be obscured, so sometimes my measurements score higher. Wouldn't be surprised if this one had maybe one or two smaller resonances in the low mids that don't show up clearly in my measurements.
4) I might've gotten the bass summation wrong

Still, if the speaker measures that differently from an NFS result, then I'm not doing my job right. I'd be very surprised if the R200 got more than a point lower in an NFS test.

The Revel M105 got an 8.2 w/sub by the way. The KEF R3 got a 6.5/8.2, and I believe is the best of the passive bookshelves.

These look really great for the price imo. Really that directivity error is the only thing.