Sigberg Audio Saranna (fullrange, cardioid active floorstander) development thread

[sigbergaudio]

Got the front page too.

 

[Reddoc]

The first review of the Saranna is out, from Norwegian magazine Stereopluss.

An English translation of the article (which is originally in Norwegian) is available here:

Sigberg Saranna - Stereo+

It took three seconds before I started to ponder—could a hi-fi journalist possibly use active loudspeakers in their reference system?

www.stereopluss.no

View attachment 472182

Congrats, Thorbjørn, on a great review.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Congrats, Thorbjørn, on a great review.

Thank you!

 

[David_M]

The first review of the Saranna is out, from Norwegian magazine Stereopluss.

An English translation of the article (which is originally in Norwegian) is available here:

Sigberg Saranna - Stereo+

It took three seconds before I started to ponder—could a hi-fi journalist possibly use active loudspeakers in their reference system?

www.stereopluss.no

View attachment 472182

Wow!!! Congratulations on the very positive review!

Do you have any frequency response measurements, along with SPL vs distortion for these speakers?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Wow!!! Congratulations on the very positive review!

Do you have any frequency response measurements, along with SPL vs distortion for these speakers?

It has been shared in the thread before, but here they are again. They are difficult to measure in the good way, as the rear facing bass drivers don't sum correctly in the measurements even in the anechoic chamber. So I have made a simulated response, but also sharing the anechoic measurement below.

Response with simulated data below 200hz or so:

Anechoic measurements (reference axis / 10-deg off-axis), inaccurate below 150hz:

Horizontal polar (normalized):

For distortion, please refer to post #670 (page 34).

 

[David_M]

It has been shared in the thread before, but here they are again. They are difficult to measure in the good way, as the rear facing bass drivers don't sum correctly in the measurements even in the anechoic chamber. So I have made a simulated response, but also sharing the anechoic measurement below.

Response with simulated data below 200hz or so:
View attachment 472371


Anechoic measurements (reference axis / 10-deg off-axis), inaccurate below 150hz:
View attachment 472372

Horizontal polar (normalized):
View attachment 472373


For distortion, please refer to post #670 (page 34).

Thank you very much for the above graphs ... one thing I didn't understand when you said "the rear facing bass drivers don't sum correctly in the measurements...". Is this an issue with the speakers or the test chamber or environment?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Thank you very much for the above graphs ... one thing I didn't understand when you said "the rear facing bass drivers don't sum correctly in the measurements...". Is this an issue with the speakers or the test chamber or environment?

With the test chamber. In the middle of an anechoic chamber the bass doesn't behave the same way as in a normal room, so the bass level is not represented correctly.

 

[David_M]

With the test chamber. In the middle of an anechoic chamber the bass doesn't behave the same way as in a normal room, so the bass level is not represented correctly.

Isn't the anechoic chamber, by definition, have no echoes or reflections from the source? That is, its supposed to absorb all sounds from the source speaker, reflecting none back to the test microphone, similar to if the speaker is placed in an open field. So the chamber response is the response of the front woofers, with no input from the rear woofers, producing the attenuated response above? And that's what you mean by rear bass not summing correctly?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Isn't the anechoic chamber, by definition, have no echoes or reflections from the source? That is, its supposed to absorb all sounds from the source speaker, reflecting none back to the test microphone, similar to if the speaker is placed in an open field. So the chamber response is the response of the front woofers, with no input from the rear woofers, producing the attenuated response above? And that's what you mean by rear bass not summing correctly?

Yes, it's even less echoes than in an open field, as the chamber has no floor or ground either. The speaker is on a pedestal above the "floor" and the floor is just an elevated, open grid hanging in mid air.

So yes, the direct sound picked up by the microphone does not correlate with what we would measure (or hear) in a normal room.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Yes, it's even less echoes than in an open field, as the chamber has no floor or ground either. The speaker is on a pedestal above the "floor" and the floor is just an elevated, open grid hanging in mid air.

So yes, the direct sound picked up by the microphone does not correlate with what we would measure (or hear) in a normal room.

If you measured the speaker with it mounted slightly away from the [hard] ground, facing upward with mic facing downward toward the ground/speaker, would the result correlate more with a room response, just with no additional boundaries to muddy the result?

 

[sigbergaudio]

If you measured the speaker with it mounted slightly away from the [hard] ground, facing upward with mic facing downward toward the ground/speaker, would the result correlate more with a room response, just with no additional boundaries to muddy the result?

Hm, possibly. So you might get a more accurate level in the bass, but you'll still get reflections from the ground disturbing the result. The easiest is probably to merge two measurements, one of the direct sound and then an additional measurement from the rear and/or nearfield. I'm actually in the process of building a relatively large semi-anechoic chamber for development + QA work now, so we'll see what I can do there.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Hm, possibly. So you might get a more accurate level in the bass, but you'll still get reflections from the ground disturbing the result. The easiest is probably to merge two measurements, one of the direct sound and then an additional measurement from the rear and/or nearfield. I'm actually in the process of building a relatively large semi-anechoic chamber for development + QA work now, so we'll see what I can do there.

Need to get it on a Klippel. That would be interesting.

Keep us updated on the chamber build. Will be good to see.

 

[sigbergaudio]

There's been some debate on the focus on rock/metal vs other music as well, and how that can alienate some potential customers. Here's a potential new perspective that tries to encapsulate the fact that both genres actually have the same requirements in many ways. When you're on the actual website you can slide to see each picture more fully as well.

 

[Reddoc]

Need to get it on a Klippel.

If the principle of the speaker function is cardioid effects requiring SBIR from the wall behind the speaker, will the Klippel results be interpretable?
If it is just a sense of curiosity, I can see the interest but I would have thought that in-room data would be the only useful data for speakers like this. Maybe I am wrong, would be interested to hear how Klippel would help "judge".

 

[JustJones]

Of course it's a smaller speaker but EAC measured the D&D 8c on the Klippel and also outside with the speaker on it's back facing upward using the ground for the rear wall to reinforce the subs, with the mic facing down.

Dutch & Dutch 8c Speaker Review

Dutch & Dutch 8c Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Anyway , congratulations on a great speaker.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Of course it's a smaller speaker but EAC measured the D&D 8c on the Klippel and also outside with the speaker on it's back facing upward using the ground for the rear wall to reinforce the subs, with the mic facing down.

Dutch & Dutch 8c Speaker Review

Dutch & Dutch 8c Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Anyway , congratulations on a great speaker.

That's interesting, looks like a measurement outside like the one done by 8C here might work. Some risk of damaging the speakers though.

And thank you!

 

[Matt_Holland]

That's interesting, looks like a measurement outside like the one done by 8C here might work. Some risk of damaging the speakers though.

And thank you!

That’s exactly what I was suggesting above.

Couple of additional thoughts regarding this measurement method.
1. Make the distance from the floor a variable to show how this changes the overall response.
2. Try absorbing material on the ground to limit the boundary interaction to low frequencies.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That’s exactly what I was suggesting above.

Couple of additional thoughts regarding this measurement method.
1. Make the distance from the floor a variable to show how this changes the overall response.
2. Try absorbing material on the ground to limit the boundary interaction to low frequencies.

Yes, I understood that, just wasn't sure how it would work. Also, with a speaker that is 1.1m long and weighs 45kg, it's probably quite easy to end up at least scratching it. But anything for science etc. Will try to new chamber first.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Stjernholm reviews on Youtube who currently has both the Saranna and Manta on loan has started dripfeeding excerpts from the review. Here is an interesting one where you can hear recordings at a moderately loud level, and quite loud level on a pretty bass heavy track, to see if you hear any compression. Recorded with stereo microphones at the listening position (a bit over 3 meters I think).

 

[David_M]

Great deep textured bass, but I could not tell the difference, in loudness levels, between the 80dB and 108dB test tracks, which doesn't make sense. Am I doing something wrong? In my setup, I actually preferred hearing through my Kali pro studio desktop speakers and SVS SB4000 sub than my headphones.