• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Quested S8R 2-way studio monitor measurements by Sound & Recording

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,971
Likes
11,091
750_9177.jpg
DSC_1290.jpg

S8R-SPIN-580x356.png

S8R-FRE-580x434.png

S8R-hor-580x357.png
S8R-ver-580x357.png
S8R-CMP-580x441.png
S8R-MAX-580x434.png
S8R-MLT-580x434.png
S8R-PHA-580x421.png
S8R-SPC-580x434.png


Profile Quested S8R - Rosewood Edition
Frequency range: 34 Hz - 22 kHz (-6 dB)
Ripple: 7.9 dB (100 Hz - 10 kHz)
Hor. aperture angle: 120 degrees (-6 dB Iso 1 kHz - 10 kHz)
Ver. aperture angle: 120 degrees (-6 dB Iso 1 kHz - 10 kHz)
Max. useful volume: 107 dB (3 % THD 100 Hz - 10 kHz)
Bass capability: 106 dB (10 % THD 50 - 100 Hz)
Maximum level at 1 m (free field) with EIA-426B signal at full scale: 102.5 dB Leq and 115 dB Lpk
Pair deviation: 0.44 dB (max. 100 Hz - 10 kHz)
Noise level (A-weighted): 19.4 dBA (10 cm)
Dimensions/weight: 300 × 428 × 334 mm (W×H×D) / 17.6 kg

Imho quite mediocre, especially considering the pair price of 4380€.

Source: https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/quested-s8r-2-wege-monitor-im-test/
 
Last edited:

RobL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
361
Likes
462
I saw the link, do you subscribe to have access to the full review? Did they have any subjective impressions?
 
OP
thewas

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,971
Likes
11,091
I saw the link, do you subscribe to have access to the full review? Did they have any subjective impressions?
Yes, but they usually upload also the full review for free online view after few months.
 

RobL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
361
Likes
462
Yes, but they usually upload also the full review for free online view after few months.
Ok, don’t want you to break copyright but did their impressions line up with the measurements? ie.) mediocre
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,502
Likes
6,374
Location
Canada

Vuki

Active Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
278
Likes
293
Measurementwise they probably sound quite nice...
 

RobL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2021
Messages
361
Likes
462

Chrise36

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
764
Likes
247
His measurements are from 4m away not what the NFS would show i think
 

dominikz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
554
Likes
1,922
His measurements are from 4m away not what the NFS would show i think
Actually anechoic measurements remain quite stable after you move away from loudspeaker's nearfield.
NFS measures in nearfield, but uses very clever math to calculate the anechoic response at the CEA2034 standard distance of 2m (farfield). The shape of an anechoic response measured at 2m or 4m for a speaker this size should therefore be the same.
So honestly I'd expect pretty good agreement to an NFS measurement.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot about air absorption. There will be some loss of HF energy at 4m vs 2m.
 

Chrise36

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
764
Likes
247
Actually anechoic measurements remain quite stable after you move away from loudspeaker's nearfield.
NFS measures in nearfield, but uses very clever math to calculate the anechoic response at the CEA2034 standard distance of 2m (farfield). The shape of an anechoic response measured at 2m or 4m for a speaker this size should therefore be the same.
So honestly I'd expect pretty good agreement to an NFS measurement.

EDIT: Sorry, forgot about air absorption. There will be some loss of HF energy at 4m vs 2m.
It is not a true anechoic chamber:
Under 100hz:
kombinierte Nahfeld-Fernfeldmessungen.
In some reviews he is using 2m in others it is hard to find the distance he used. In some he is using 2.83v for sensitivity in others 1volt. Hard to do comparisons.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
5,223
Likes
4,694
Location
Southampton, England

as labs

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
33
Likes
17
Location
hudson valley, ny
Is this model at all similar to the V2108 besides the 8+1 configuration?

I had a great time with the v2108, doesn't look like much or measure perfectly, but it kicks some butt... Volt 8" driver and I think a morel 1" dome. The V2108 is a great speaker in my opinion. It won't win any beauty awards, but it won a subjective shootout in a client's studio being compared to the Neumann KH310, Genelec cyclops-looking things (I forget the name), and the Focal Trio6be.
 

dominikz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
554
Likes
1,922
It is not a true anechoic chamber:
Under 100hz:
kombinierte Nahfeld-Fernfeldmessungen.
In some reviews he is using 2m in others it is hard to find the distance he used. In some he is using 2.83v for sensitivity in others 1volt. Hard to do comparisons.
Most anechoic rooms are not really anechoic under 100Hz - however there are variuos ways around that limitation. Splicing with the LF nearfield measurement is one way.
In my experience properly done anechoic, quasi-anechoic and NFS measurements all produce very comparable results.
It was quite surprising for me TBH when I first measured a few loudspeakers more seriously and compared with other sources.
 

Chrise36

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
764
Likes
247
Most anechoic rooms are not really anechoic under 100Hz - however there are variuos ways around that limitation. Splicing with the LF nearfield measurement is one way.
In my experience properly done anechoic, quasi-anechoic and NFS measurements all produce very comparable results.
It was quite surprising for me TBH when I first measured a few loudspeakers more seriously and compared with other sources.
If you compare Amirs measurement of the Neumann 310 you will see the dip is missing and also above 5 khz the level is a bit lower. I tend to believe the further you measure more deviation there will be.
 

dominikz

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
554
Likes
1,922
If you compare Amirs measurement of the Neumann 310 you will see the dip is missing and also above 5 khz the level is a bit lower. I tend to believe the further you measure more deviation there will be.
A bit off-topic perhaps, but please note that S&R KH310 measurement is also at 2m (the same distance that NFS calculates CEA2034 data for), so measurement distance shouldn't be the cause of the (very small) deviations between the two.
Here is the digitized S&R measurement overlaid with the ASR one:
Neumann KH310 - on-axis measurement comparison between SnR and ASR.jpg

The bass dip in ASR measurement is only -1,5dB vs S&R and the HF difference above 10kHz is at most <2dB. The rest matches very nicely (except the much higher resolution of the NFS measurement). Note that this is actually within manufacturer specified unit-to-unit tolerance of ±0.87dB (100Hz to 10kHz).

The bass dip in ASR measurement may also be explained by the relatively cold temperature when doing the scan, from the review:
Temperature was 58 degrees F initially. Past experience indicates that there may be some impact on bass response of Neumann speakers so a second measurement was performed after heating up the room to 68 degrees (it dropped back to 64 at the end of testing).
Note the temperature dependence of LF performance is explained in KH80 measurement #3:
Suspicion quickly went after the temperature difference for when I tested mine (in winter) and theirs (temperature controlled at 21 degrees C). Guy showed me a couple of useful slides from Klippel indicating changes in speaker parameters based on temperature:

1594430253068.png


1594430259220.png
And:
So Guy put a unit in the fridge overnight and then made measurements in the morning every 3 minutes as the speaker and its components warmed up. Here are his results, normalized to 21 degree C (black line):

1594430395865.png


As we see in the bottom blue line, lower temp most definitely created the dip around 80 Hz and gradually disappeared as the speaker warmed up.
Since we're talking only ~1,5dB difference, several degrees in temperature difference might cover it. Another explanation could be related to the splicing/calibration method employed in the S&R measurement - but I'd personally bet on the temperature.

For the HF difference I can think of three very likely reasons for the deviation - different microphone calibrations, tweeter unit tolerances and/or differences in air absorption coefficient (due to e.g. different temperature, humidity...).

In short, it is IMHO very unlikely that S&R measurements would be invalid due to them sometimes measuring from further away, since they seem to be doing so in anechoic conditions. In my opinion the two KH310 measurements match really well to one another in all of the important ways - and actually nicely showcase how comparable results can be even when obtained by very different methods.
 
Top Bottom