Triangle Titus EZ spinorama measurements (CTA-2034)

[Toni Mas]

Nearfield measurements show problems at 800-1000 Hz asView attachment 464341

From my experience with Arta software nearfield measurements of woofers loose reliability as frequency goes up and the null observed here at 1khz clearly looks like a measurement artifact.

Imho, to get a clearer idea of the performance of this woofer, the only solution would be disconnecting It from the xover and realize a semianechoic measurement of this driver in isolation. 1 meter distance for the gated measurement is not really necessary but much better if gated and nearfield responses are merged as low as posible, 500hz or so ..

 

[Selkirks]

Weird timing. I just bought a pair yesterday for a computer setup. It should be fun to do subjective comparisons with my AsciLab C6B's.

 

[Ageve]

From my experience with Arta software nearfield measurements of woofers loose reliability as frequency goes up and the null observed here at 1khz clearly looks like a measurement artifact.

In my experience, nearfield measurement artifacts are more common with tweeters, but sure, it can happen.

The measurement here was done at just 7 mm distance, to get an accurate response up to around 800 Hz (for the quasi-anechoic response). That's the main reason for doing it, but I usually do a few extra ones just to see if it makes a difference (and to get a nicer picture).

Measuring the woofer outside of the box, without the crossover is interesting of course, but it won't tell you much when you're evaluating the speaker as a whole (port/cabinet resonances interfering with the woofer response, and/or crossover issues causing it to play outside of it's linear range).

Here are the ones I did this time (7mm used for the quasi-anechoic response, right next to the phase plug):

(5mm from phase plug = in front of it)


A couple of other speakers measured with the same method, next to the phase plug on the Jamo as well (8mm distance):

 

[Toni Mas]

Imho, the nearfield measurement is useful to get an estimate of the response at low frequency avoiding room influence, but is not so interesting above that range. A simulation of baffle loses and diffractions should be applied to prepare these raw data to be merged with a time gated measurement taken at a distance at least x6 the radius of the cone. For small woofers like this no problem measuring at 50 cm or so to avoid reflections spoiling the gated data and merging the 2 responses can be done at 500hz or less. For a big 15" woofers, not so easy and the final result may lack reaslism in the mid lowmid range.

 

[Ageve]

Imho, the nearfield measurement is useful to get an estimate of the response at low frequency avoiding room influence, but is not so interesting above that range.

It's a useful complement to the rest of the measurements.

Problems in the quasi-anechoic (or in-room) response can often be seen in near-field as well. When you have a peak or null there, it's usually (but not always) followed by either a peak or null (depending on phase) in far-field as well. But it shouldn't be used to evaluate speaker performance on it's own.

A good example is the 5 kHz cone breakup (midwoofer). The effect can be seen in all of the graphs, but it could be difficult to know the cause without a near-field measurement. There are also clear far-field issues at 800-1000Hz, and in the near-field you have port/cabinet resonances (rather low in level though) and a woofer null that could be related to these issues.

A simulation of baffle loses and diffractions should be applied to prepare these raw data to be merged with a time gated measurement taken at a distance at least x6 the radius of the cone. For small woofers like this no problem measuring at 50 cm or so to avoid reflections spoiling the gated data and merging the 2 responses can be done at 500hz or less. For a big 15" woofers, not so easy and the final result may lack reaslism in the mid lowmid range.

Here's a comparison before and after correction. As you can see, the measurement by Audio.com.pl has not been corrected:

Please note that the response above 800 Hz is not accurate here.

 

[Toni Mas]

It's a useful complement to the rest of the measurements.

Problems in the quasi-anechoic (or in-room) response can often be seen in near-field as well. When you have a peak or null there, it's usually (but not always) followed by either a peak or null (depending on phase) in far-field as well. But it shouldn't be used to evaluate speaker performance on it's own.

A good example is the 5 kHz cone breakup (midwoofer). The effect can be seen in all of the graphs, but it could be difficult to know the cause without a near-field measurement.

I understand that for this kind of reviews all the measurements are taken leaving untouched the loudspeaker so that the nearfield measurement is the only way to get some hints regarding possible issues from the woofer, bass reflex ports, etc... But in fact I would prefer a more detailed approach disassembling all the parts of the speaker to get semi-anechoic measurements of each driver in isolation, without and with xover, and showing how their responses finally sum. Of course, this is because as a diyer I am more interested in understanding how things work ( or not...) than in the final judgement made by the reviewer regarding the "quality" of the product reviewed. It is obvious that my interests are totally different than those of a potential buyer.

Regarding the sum of the woofer(s) and the bass reflex port(s), I also think this is another can of worms, because more than a measurement (strictly speaking) it is more an "estimate" based on the weighted sum of various elements, depending of their relative sizes, and depending on this you can get a more or less realistic estimate of the real thing.
For example, if the port is located at the back of the cabinet, it is more difficult that spurious noises sum with the woofer ( though both always interact), but as you need to put the microphone right in front of the port your measurement will over emphasize port noises as if the port would be located at the front side of the speaker. Maybe a different measurement method like floor plan based will give different hints that will help understand better how the real thing works...

 

[DanielT]

Good job @Ageve . Thanks for the measurements and your listening impressions. You can say, as some in the thread do, that they are ok but have they missed that you wrote this:

Overall, it sounds better than the B&W 686 S2 i measured a while ago, but my Infinity Primus 150, with the EQ by @Maiky76 applied sounds much better.

A pair of used Infinity Primus 150s costs around $50-$100. A pair of used Triangle Titus EZs, between $450-$750....:

Seen in that light, the light of the wallet, bang for the bucks and so on, is Triangle Titus EZ ok speakers?
(if we are going to mix price into the rating/voting about them, that is?)

 

[Ageve]

Good job @Ageve . Thanks for the measurements and your listening impressions. You can say, as some in the thread do, that they are ok but have they missed that you wrote this:
…
Seen in that light, the light of the wallet, bang for the bucks and so on, is Triangle Titus EZ ok speakers?

Thanks,

The Triangle improved quite a bit with EQ as well. I still preferred the Infinity though, but it’s unusually good for such an inexpensive speaker, especially with EQ.

I understand that for this kind of reviews all the measurements are taken leaving untouched the loudspeaker so that the nearfield measurement is the only way to get some hints regarding possible issues from the woofer, bass reflex ports, etc... But in fact I would prefer a more detailed approach disassembling all the parts of the speaker to get semi-anechoic measurements of each driver in isolation, without and with xover, and showing how their responses finally sum

Yep, I’m focusing on the product as a whole. Doing both would sure be interesting, but it would take a lot of time, and in the end not many people would benefit from it (knowing how a speaker performs is probably more interesting than the technical reasons, to most people).

 

[DanielT]

Thanks,

The Triangle improved quite a bit with EQ as well. I still preferred the Infinity though, but it’s unusually good for such an inexpensive speaker, especially with EQ.

Maybe a little unfair because Infinity Primus 150 is a used speaker price-performance banger.

 

[Toni Mas]

When compairing the responses of both speakers, it seems that both might be made almost identical clones by applying Eq. Will this make them sound exactly the same?

 

[billou5767]

Weird timing. I just bought a pair yesterday for a computer setup. It should be fun to do subjective comparisons with my AsciLab C6B's.

the mr 5 edifier is out for 250 ...

 

[torgeirs]

we are spoiled with the F6B for the same price

Is this a popup advertisement?

 

[Selkirks]

Smaller than I expected.

 

[Karmacoma]

Good job @Ageve . Thanks for the measurements and your listening impressions. You can say, as some in the thread do, that they are ok but have they missed that you wrote this:

Overall, it sounds better than the B&W 686 S2 i measured a while ago, but my Infinity Primus 150, with the EQ by @Maiky76 applied sounds much better.

A pair of used Infinity Primus 150s costs around $50-$100. A pair of used Triangle Titus EZs, between $450-$750....:
View attachment 464686
Seen in that light, the light of the wallet, bang for the bucks and so on, is Triangle Titus EZ ok speakers?
(if we are going to mix price into the rating/voting about them, that is?)

Is it really fair to compare it to a unicorn ?
Find me a better or even close to cost/performance ratio on the market than the infinity.

 

[Ageve]

When compairing the responses of both speakers, it seems that both might be made almost identical clones by applying Eq. Will this make them sound exactly the same?

Well, they sound much more similar with EQ.

Also please note that the first comparison was done with EQ for the Infinity, and without for the Triangle.

I used it as a reference, because I know it performs well.

When using EQ with both, I still preferred the Inifinity overall, but it was much closer, and to be fair, the treble resolution was a little better with the triangle, but the soundstage was better with the Infinity. It was easier to locate the sound with the Triangle (easier to hear that it was coming from a speaker). I'm not sure (of course), but I think it could be the higher distortion calling attention to itself, or perhaps the 5 kHz issues.

 

[Toni Mas]

Well, they sound much more similar with EQ.

Also please note that the first comparison was done with EQ for the Infinity, and without for the Triangle.

I used it as a reference, because I know it performs well.

When using EQ with both, I still preferred the Inifinity overall, but it was much closer, and to be fair, the treble resolution was a little better with the triangle, but the soundstage was better with the Infinity. It was easier to locate the sound with the Triangle (easier to hear that it was coming from a speaker). I'm not sure (of course), but I think it could be the higher distortion calling attention to itself, or perhaps the 5 kHz issues.

Ok. I don't think distortion matter at all, but i agree that this tweeter might be problematic because of this tiny horn that imho only makes sense for super tweeters used in the very last octave, that is over 8-10khz. With the xover in use here, tweeter integration cannot be optimum, though CEA curves might mask problems in an even way because of the heavy averaging involved...

 

[AnalogSteph]

Any insight as to potential causes for the 900 Hz resonance? That one's a bit of a head-scratcher. For starters, it doesn't look to be a port resonance. Maybe an unlucky combo of surround resonance with something baffle-related?

 

[Toni Mas]

Any insight as to potential causes for the 900 Hz resonance? That one's a bit of a head-scratcher. For starters, it doesn't look to be a port resonance. Maybe an unlucky combo of surround resonance with something baffle-related?

Imho a measurement artifact related to the port. This port is located at the back of the speaker, but its response is summed as if It were at the front. A diffrrent measurement method would help clarify. Maybe simply merging nearfield and gated responses lower. 800hz Is much too high because of this port issue...

 

[Ageve]

Imho a measurement artifact related to the port. This port is located at the back of the speaker, but its response is summed as if It were at the front. A diffrrent measurement method would help clarify. Maybe simply merging nearfield and gated responses lower. 800hz Is much too high because of this port issue...

No, that's incorrect. I think you misunderstood the part about 800 Hz. All I said was that the response is only accurate below that.

Port resonances won't affect the quasi-anechoic response. It's merged at 450 Hz. You always want to merge as low as possible, to get more directivity information.

It can be easily confirmed by comparing the 1m measurement (gated with 10ms window here, with ERB smoothing) with the quasi-anechoic response*:

It can be further confirmed by simply merging at different frequencies in REW. In this case 800Hz actually works, but it's a bad idea when doing a spin:

The 900 Hz resonance is present in both the gated (and quasi-anechoic sum) and in-room (4m) measurements, as well as the ones by Audio.com.pl.

* I always compare it that way, to make sure that the response is similar (confirming that the merging is accurate).

Any insight as to potential causes for the 900 Hz resonance? That one's a bit of a head-scratcher. For starters, it doesn't look to be a port resonance. Maybe an unlucky combo of surround resonance with something baffle-related?

I never got around to measure it with the port blocked, but as you say, it doesn't look like a port resonance. I listened to the port though, and there were no obvious issues (just clean bass).

Unfortunately I don't have the speaker anymore.

 

[Toni Mas]

No, that's incorrect. I think you misunderstood the part about 800 Hz. All I said was that the response is only accurate below that.

Port resonances won't affect the quasi-anechoic response. It's merged at 450 Hz.

Ah ok... I was surprised that you might have merged the responses so high. So there is definitely something weird with this driver...