Vanatoo Transparent Zero Speaker Review

[BYRTT]

I don't have an ability to remeasure with Klippel and EQ. If you mean in-room, a lot of these differences get lost in room measurements so much harder to verify there.

So what is the latest EQ/convolution you want me to try with this speaker? And 305P MK II? Can't keep track of the back and forth.

Thanks Amir, in all the back and forth did you notice the EQed 305P MK II went in Preference rating score from 4,49 to 7,3 and ha ha can't stop think that is M2 territory and it would be nice if could find the time and report how the convolution filter attached below sounds, can't know how better precision Klippel analyzes got down the road but in original review was of the first few feel you shall use the zip-folder with the mic calibration and mic cage fix, each zip-folder have rates support for 44,1/48/88,2/96/176,4/192kHz.

Animation of 4,49 score to 7,3:

Allow me add some pratical notes to hinder user mistakes for test process and what i think can be important for testing such small speaker that have limits, set dip switches on back panel of 305P to same as was set in objective Klippel analyze, in many track materials can be mastered to be most natural at 86dB SPL it could probably be good policy test EQed 305P nearfield and use SPL-instrument to calibrate avarage SPL at actual nearfield listening position to that 86dB number and use mono in test plus listening axis should be around tweeter height ...

Should covolution filter sound bit interesting enough and in speaker is small and roll steep of 7th order 48Hz maybe add below high shelve filter and step it up and down per 0,5dB to reach some better or varmer subjective quality :

Maybe add this PEQ to tame the vertical spacing of woofer and tweeter or to improve room sound in farfield :

Thanks and no problem if test is not executed, and if test is run hope its fun enough and look forward hear where we are.

 

[GaryG]

But the existing setup, convoluted as it may be, will still work long after the app disappears from the store.

I'm a little slow to get engaged here. Too much going on. The review will be stone cold and nobody will know Vanatoo chimed-in!

The point of our "Configurations" is:
A) You don't have the even know they're there. Take the speakers out of the box and use them, just like everybody else's.
B) If you do read manuals and care about such things, you have a fair amount of configurability that you just don't get anywhere else.
C) It costs the buyer zero dollars.
D) It will never become obsolete. You'll be on your 4th phone and 9th OS update and your speakers won't care and will still offer all of their quirky goodness.

Don't discount the value of C and D. Adding an app and support would add dollars to the sale price for features that, frankly, a lot of people never use. An app based system is expensive for a small company to support, and it increases the likelihood of the speakers becoming prematurely obsolte.

We get the geekyness of the Configurations. Your point as to why they are that way is right on with our development thoughts!

 

[Sancus]

D) It will never become obsolete. You'll be on your 4th phone and 9th OS update and your speakers won't care and will still offer all of their quirky goodness.

I own the T0 and I absolutely agree with your approach. I already have too many apps for things, the only thing an app could do here that would make me interested was if it added parametric EQ.

For the existing settings, I think an improvement would be to just add a couple more switches. L/R(active), shelf/flat(dsp) would go a long way I think. Though I see the T1E already basically has this with separate treble/bass knobs and an L/R switch, so I imagine if there's ever a T0 Encore, the switches might get some refinement too.

Thanks for a great product.

 

[gr-e]

I'm a little slow to get engaged here. Too much going on. The review will be stone cold and nobody will know Vanatoo chimed-in!

The point of our "Configurations" is:
A) You don't have the even know they're there. Take the speakers out of the box and use them, just like everybody else's.
B) If you do read manuals and care about such things, you have a fair amount of configurability that you just don't get anywhere else.
C) It costs the buyer zero dollars.
D) It will never become obsolete. You'll be on your 4th phone and 9th OS update and your speakers won't care and will still offer all of their quirky goodness.

Don't discount the value of C and D. Adding an app and support would add dollars to the sale price for features that, frankly, a lot of people never use. An app based system is expensive for a small company to support, and it increases the likelihood of the speakers becoming prematurely obsolte.

We get the geekyness of the Configurations. Your point as to why they are that way is right on with our development thoughts!

Can you comment on what's causing the bump in high frequencies? Bad driver/dsp, unit variation or is it an intentional coloration?

 

[GaryG]

I think it was Siegfried Linkwitz who said something to the effect that your ears don't hear what your eyes see. That's a rough paraphrase. His point was that measured response matters, but it shouldn't keep you up at night.

The whole point of ASR as I understand it is to put some science around what sounds good/bad. I'm on board with that agenda. We put stock in the work of Toole and the 2034 Spinorama tests. As far as I know it's the best work out there on listener preferences and what most people think sounds good. We design with those goals in mind. But it is worth noting that there are a LOT of highly regarded speakers on the market that don't look good per this criteria.

Vanatoo speakers are built in one of the really big Chinese OEM's that make a lot of other products that you see in the stores and online. We are a very small fish in a very large sea. Our OEM partner has pretty good QA systems, and we don't have a lot of quality problems. That said, they only "guarantee" to produce products within +/- 3dB of your "golden sample". in the 8 years we've been doing business with them they've been really consistent with woofers. Tweeters are tougher. We see more variation in tweeter responses than we do with woofers. I have a lot of electro-mechanical design manufacturing background, and I don't find this very surprising. It seems logical that very minor differences in a tweeter will show-up in the response. I don't have access to other manufacturer's data, but I see no reason to think we're particularly unique in this regard.

To specifically answer your question, the tweeter in the sample Amir measured is a couple of dB hotter in the mid treble than our design target. While I DO put stock in the testing, I'm also in the Linkwitz camp. I'd love every unit to be identical, but a few dB of variation is inevitable. In the grand scheme of the product and its usage, it doesn't keep me up at night.

 

[gr-e]

Thanks for your reply.

What concerns me the most is that the hotness of tweeter is right in the diffraction region, where a good design should have a dip in the on-axis response. And that's exactly what I see in Noaudiophile's and Audioexpress measurement:

ASR measurement vs ASR measurement EQ'd to match Noaudiophile measurement (orange line):

Personally, such a low-Q 5dB bump would keep me up at night if I paid $400 for this speaker

I hope you've achieved better consistency with the aluminium dome you use in the T1E.

 

[panther]

I have had these for about a year, quite enjoy them, nice size on the desk if you have a smaller desk to work with at a computer. Also a lot of connectivity options. Programming them is a bit of a pain but once you get them setup you probably won't again.
I also got the iso Acoustics stands, not sure if it is snake oil or not but I feel like there is a slight improvement in sound with them, and they are stable.
I have been thinking of moving on to a set of Kanto Tuk speakers as my desk space has gotten larger, not sure if anyone has tried those. Unfortunately I can't go listen to any where I live.
Also want to say Vanatoo has been awesome customer support wise a couple times.

 

[NoAudiophile]

Seen a few questions about my measurements on here. I received a final production sample from Vanatoo back when they launched this product - I got my sample before launch. It was more than likely the same unit used for the measurements shown on promotional material. This is my guess as to why it tracks so closely with that product data.

As for my preferance for the T0 over the LSR305, I still have both speakers in storage, though one of my LSR305's is broken probably from attic heat exposure, and I would still take the lower distortion levels of that pair of Vanatoo's over the LSR305's every day of the week. Tone is very similar, but imaging and distortion set the Vanatoo above the JBL in my opinion. That said, I would not take Amir's flawed pair of T0's over my JBL's.

I doubt anyone outside of manufacturers has as much experience as I do measuring products for variation - I went through 5 samples of the Micca MB42x, and 4 sets of Dayton B652's, and a few others where I've had duplicates or returns. Everything that I've seen leads me to believe that you can expect a +-2dB on products over $500, and +-3dB variation on products under $500, and anything under $150 is a total crap shoot. The Micca RB42 speakers I have are particularly unbalanced just between left and right in the same sample - cheap crossover components inside of a complicated crossover means lots of room for variability.

A suggestion I can offer is to start measuring Left and Right separately for each speaker sample to pick up on at least a bit of that variation - which in a matched set can be as much as +-2dB confined to a small areas of the response - but showing that variation will set reader expectation levels for the accuracy and useability of measured data provided as well as a benchmark of quality for manufacturers to maybe address.

 

[daftcombo]

Everything that I've seen leads me to believe that you can expect a +-2dB on products over $500, and +-3dB variation on products under $500, and anything under $150 is a total crap shoot.

Do you mean that you've measured a difference of 2 dBs on products over $500, or a difference of 4 dBs?
Anyway, even 2 dBs is a lot. The EQ corrections you or @amirm recommend can be useless or even harmful to anyone else if so.

 

[NoAudiophile]

Do you mean that you've measured a difference of 2 dBs on products over $500, or a difference of 4 dBs?
Anyway, even 2 dBs is a lot. The EQ corrections you or @amirm recommend can be useless or even harmful to anyone else if so.

I may have overstated, I guess +-1dB for items over $1000 is another category that would be good - but I have seen some obvious inconsistency in higher dollar speakers.

The variation is variable by definition, but generally the trends in a speakers response remain regardless of that variation. I think that if you are doing DSP correction it should be done per speaker if you want an accurate result. General DSP improvements should be limited to broad filters that address trends or flaws in a design, something like baffle step, or bass extension, unbalanced dispersion, etc. If you go over a single sample with a fine tooth comb and apply it to all speakers of that kind you will be left in many cases with making things worse. I know from experience with the feedback I've received over the years for my DSP corrections.

 

[daftcombo]

I may have overstated, I guess +-1dB for items over $1000 is another category that would be good - but I have seen some obvious inconsistency in higher dollar speakers.

The variation is variable by definition, but generally the trends in a speakers response remain regardless of that variation. I think that if you are doing DSP correction it should be done per speaker if you want an accurate result. General DSP improvements should be limited to broad filters that address trends or flaws in a design, something like baffle step, or bass extension, unbalanced dispersion, etc. If you go over a single sample with a fine tooth comb and apply it to all speakers of that kind you will be left in many cases with making things worse. I know from experience with the feedback I've received over the years for my DSP corrections.

I've read all of your reviews with great pleasure, but have never been able to reproduce the same measurements myself because I don't have a garden and simply can't put my speakers outside for measurement. And all I got in my living-room was bad under 1 kHz. Correcting speaker sample by sample would be even more difficult, one would have to be super careful to place those samples at the exact same place on the stand... I guess the best is still to pick several measurements online and correct what shows on all of them.

 

[NoAudiophile]

I've read all of your reviews with great pleasure, but have never been able to reproduce the same measurements myself because I don't have a garden and simply can't put my speakers outside for measurement. And all I got in my living-room was bad under 1 kHz. Correcting speaker sample by sample would be even more difficult, one would have to be super careful to place those samples at the exact same place on the stand... I guess the best is still to pick several measurements online and correct what shows on all of them.

Most corrections that need to be specific to a individual speaker are going to be above 800Hz, if you can get that right and use external data for bass and cabinet correction you should be damn near golden.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.
I did not try to boost the LF as the driver seems already strained as is.
Score no EQ: 3.93
Score with EQ: 6.15, 5.71 if the PEQ at 153Hz is not enabled

All PEQ
     freq        Gain     Q
     153.0,    -2.70,   1.50,... %     If omitted score 5.71   
     460.0,    -0.80,   2.80,...
     743.0,    -2.07,   7.90,...
    1031.0,    -1.30,   5.77,...
    2340.0,     1.00,   2.00,...
    4848.0,    -4.20,   1.44,...
    7227.0,    -1.70,   2.41,...
   10772.0,    -1.00,   3.85,...
   13440.0,     2.47,   4.55,...
   16500.0,    -2.00,   5.50,...

Spinorama with EQ

Regression - tonal balance
the EQed version would need about 1.5dB boost when doing AB comparison
red curve is without the 153Hz PEQ

Radar plot:
Quite an improvement.

The rest of the data is attached.

 

[flipflop]

Score with EQ: [...] 5.71 if the PEQ at 153Hz is not enabled

With my PIR based 20-band EQ, they score 5.8, which is also quite poor. It's not a well-designed speaker.

 

[Maiky76]

With my PIR based 20-band EQ, they score 5.8, which is also quite poor. It's not a well-designed speaker.

Your EQ is rather interesting but I just don't quite get your target

If you are optimizing for PIR you should add to your EQ the following PEQ
153.0, -2.00, 1.50
SMPIR = 0.980 which the parameter you should be looking at

But what would be really interesting is adding the same PEQ than in my EQ
153.0, -2.70, 1.50
The score becomes 6.1509 vs 6.1494 or 0.024% difference.
regardless of the intersect quality of the speaker it would make a terrific candidate to explore which strategy is better than the other one:
your strategy based on PIR mine based on score and flatness LW.
The fact that the bass response is identical which would make the task easier.

Comparison of the respective EQs:

 

[flipflop]

If you are optimizing for PIR you should add to your EQ the following PEQ
153.0, -2.00, 1.50

I don't EQ frequencies below 300 Hz. The bass region should be equalized based on the in-room response, not the anechoic response.

regardless of the intersect quality of the speaker it would make a terrific candidate to explore which strategy is better than the other one:
your strategy based on PIR mine based on score and flatness LW.

I'm pretty sure a PIR based method with an ideal slope would always yield a higher predicted preference score. Which method that scores higher in an actual listening test is another matter.

 

[shellback]

Would these work well for nightstand usage in a bedroom?

 

[amira]

I'm a little slow to get engaged here. Too much going on. The review will be stone cold and nobody will know Vanatoo chimed-in!

The point of our "Configurations" is:
A) You don't have the even know they're there. Take the speakers out of the box and use them, just like everybody else's.
B) If you do read manuals and care about such things, you have a fair amount of configurability that you just don't get anywhere else.
C) It costs the buyer zero dollars.
D) It will never become obsolete. You'll be on your 4th phone and 9th OS update and your speakers won't care and will still offer all of their quirky goodness.

Don't discount the value of C and D. Adding an app and support would add dollars to the sale price for features that, frankly, a lot of people never use. An app based system is expensive for a small company to support, and it increases the likelihood of the speakers becoming prematurely obsolte.

We get the geekyness of the Configurations. Your point as to why they are that way is right on with our development thoughts!

Does the bluetooth still broadcast as available to join even when it's using another input? That was really annoying in an office or apartment and there wasn't anyone way to turn it off.

 

[warpdrive]

Just a quick question. Does the speaker have built-in settings to make the treble bump less? I want to use this as a general speaker so don't really plan to use EQ at all.

 

[psydave]

Just a quick question. Does the speaker have built-in settings to make the treble bump less? I want to use this as a general speaker so don't really plan to use EQ at all.

There is a built in EQ to reduce treble