Which Speakers Are Know To Have The Best Spinorama Measurements?

[tuga]

Sorry,but Gradient Helsinki doesn't use coaxial driver, just a custom waveguide for the tweeter

You are right. I hadn't seen a photo for some time...

 

[ReaderZ]

Yes, absolutely, if we add value to the equation, many many things win over the 8351B haha.

In the end I went for KH310 over the 8350A. Mostly because I got a great deal and paid less for the pair than pair of 8350A plus GLM, also already have DAC but not USB to AES.

 

[richard12511]

the pro speakers from Harman are actives. That’s the customers of jbl that are unlikely to buy actives.

I agree there is some trickiness to making audiophile loudspeakers. With guys like Steve Guttenberg making videos about why active speakers can never sound as good as passive speakers, active speakers can be a hard sell in the high end audiophile markets. Still, they could do something like what Kef is doing, where they have an active and a passive version. Subjectivists could buy the passive version and use their Pass Labs amps, and objectivists could buy the active version and get better sound. I realize there's a cost associated with that, though.

 

[ReaderZ]

I agree there is some trickiness to making audiophile loudspeakers. With guys like Steve Guttenberg making videos about why active speakers can never sound as good as passive speakers, active speakers can be a hard sell in the high end audiophile markets. Still, they could do something like what Kef is doing, where they have an active and a passive version. Subjectivists could buy the passive version and use their Pass Labs amps, and objectivists could buy the active version and get better sound. I realize there's a cost associated with that, though.

Not that simple, active speakers have advantage in many area but also have issue of more components in a single box where anything fails the whole thing stops working, not to metion the new ones we have dsp, preamp all in there as well. So separated amp, pre amp, dsp and passive speaker tend to be more reliable in the way that when anything failed, you only need to repair or replace that single piece. With everything build in, it's very expensive to fix if anything happens to them.

I used to do passive but went with active for my current setup mostly because of space.

 

[q3cpma]

Not that simple, active speakers have advantage in many area but also have issue of more components in a single box where anything fails the whole thing stops working, not to metion the new ones we have dsp, preamp all in there as well. So separated amp, pre amp, dsp and passive speaker tend to be more reliable in the way that when anything failed, you only need to repair or replace that single piece. With everything build in, it's very expensive to fix if anything happens to them.

I used to do passive but went with active for my current setup mostly because of space.

I did think that for some time but after some reflexion, you have to consider that:
* Reliability is extremely important for most pro brands, I have yet to hear about a robust (analogue) monitor failing.
* Warranties can be quite good. Genelec, for example, is 2 years full and 5 years parts; JBL is 5 full years.
* Even out of warranty, most big brands like these keep parts for a long time, making repair possible (and not necessarily extremely expensive).
* Most external electronics are sold in stereo, while with active monitors, you only have to buy one when it fails.
* You can still buy stuff like JBL's M2 or 705/8i with external electronics.

Really, I'm quite sure my Genelecs will outlive me; and I'm young.

 

[maverickronin]

A lot of it also depends on the brand.

I wouldn't be as worried about JBL or Genelec.

D&D or Kii though...

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

A customer has a pair of Sanders, not my favourite.
Keith

In the sweet spot, mine were my favourite speakers of all time. Trouble is the sweet spot is very small and I like to share my listening with friends and family.

 

[Siwel]

My


That's a good point. I'm also surprised at how little they seem to embrace active loudspeakers, given their obvious advantages.

If by "they" you mean Harman, I propose that along with Genelec they were and remain leaders in active loudspeaker technology. I believe their first important fully self powered monitor was introduced by JBL in 1991-2(ish), that would have been the LSR28P. Also introduced in the same time frame (early-mid 90s) was the highly successful EON line, probably the first of the small portable 2 way PA speakers of its type. Mackie didn't introduce their products until a couple of years later and they were done with the help of Cal Perkins who was one of the lead engineers on the original EON project. JBL led the way on that entire class of products.


Some of the first powered loudspeakers were JBL monitor speakers. With the addition of the SE401 Stereo Energizer, introduced in 1964, any pair of monitor speakers could be converted to self-powered operation with the second speaker powered by the first. In 1995 JBL brought the active EONs to market. They were so successful with them that the pattern for small self powered speakers for use in PA was set and soon we saw Mackie et.al. copying the concept. In fact, Mackie hired Cal Perkins who was a lead engineer on the EON project to fast track their own copy of the concept. The rest have followed: Event, Behringer, KRK, Carvin, ....Dutch and Dutch.....Kii.....all relatively late to the scene but now leading the charge for the last holdouts: home hifi people who just seem to love their amps and receivers. (I know I like mine)!

Shortly thereafter, we saw the introduction of the LSR28P followed by a full line (still there in updated form) of active loudspeakers. Even the M2 can be considered a further development/variant of this concept as it is intended to be used with specific Crown and BSS developed amplification and DSP although in this case that stuff is not encapsulated in the box which does leave the door open to other electronic options. But you still need their DSP to complete the thing as conceived.

Indeed, there are so many examples of active JBL loudspeakers in both consumer and pro applications that it disproves the notion of a lack of interest. The lack of interest is, if anything, with non-pro consumers, not the manufacturers who profit by selling you the whole package, not just the speakers. As for KEF vs JBL/Revel, I have owned KEF coaxial speakers (105/3s....only the tweeter being coaxial, just as with the Blades.....also KEF LS50s) and Genelecs (mine were not coaxial, just active). My all time favorites for use as home loudspeakers remain my Salon 2s, neither active nor coaxial. I have a pair of LSR 4326s as well which of course are active monitors with internal DSP. Aside: I oversaw sales of Genelec in the Pacific Northwest from the beginning of their run here (late '80s IIRC) until the development of the LSR line at JBL when I had to choose between the two as they had become intolerant competitors (JBL forced our hand making it a strictly financial decision).

Regarding the notion of the Uni-Q approach bring inherently superior, KEF makes lovely speakers but at this point they have nothing (Including the Blade or Blade 2) that I consider better than my current Salon2s (by measurement or to listen to) but all are clearly welcome to their own opinions.

Nobody cares how we achieve a given goal in any design discipline unless our effort is either sub par (then everybody REALLY doesn't care) or demonstrably better (in which case everybody will copy us). This is one of those rare cases where the destination is more important than the road you took to get there.

I am not arguing against co-ax designs. They have their places in the repertoire. But if you believe that coax is the best way to go, I 'll argue that it is simply another way to "get there." Theoretical advantages are just that: theoretical. In any case, there is more than one way to design a single point source loudspeaker (see MBL, Walsh, German Physics, etc). Coaxial has it's own disadvantages therefore I direct you to Mr. Doppler and how LF propagation in coaxial drivers has significant potential to increase IM distortion within the passband. (see Tannoy)

One more thing: Harman via Toole, Voecks, Olive, Welti (and others) virtually invented the Spinorama concept. I think it's a terrible handle for this measurement approach but I understand why it's so named. The name came out of (their and others') research into early reflections. To simplify getting the m measurements they built a turntable to physically rotate the speaker gaining the data we now take for granted as necessary for speaker evaluation.

Simply stated, there is more than one way to skin the cat. And as regards, waveguides, same, same. Been around and used by everybody for decades. All these varied approaches are nothing more than tools in a box that can be successfully exploited in many ways for different needs. Even more stuff to annoy: Harman (through its many divisions) made and continues to produce many coaxial products (reference just about every ceiling speaker they make) but they do seem to have an aversion to including them in their higher end monitor type products. Does that mean they are unaware or disinterested in the concept? I don 't think so.


Just for laughs......Bet you've never seen one of these before!

 

[kevinh]

Is that what the science says? Genuine question. If other parameters are under control, I've seen Floyd suggest that dispersion characteristics might be a matter of individual taste. I've also seen him suggest that it might also depend on the number of speakers in play. And yet, the Salon 2 beat the M2 because it spread its energy out more and interacted more with the room. He says in his book that sidewall reflections actually enhance clarity if they are similar to the direct sound, due to the way our brain interprets them. I genuinely don't know what to believe. Some of these things seem somewhat contradictory, but maybe not; I really don't know. My own experience in my room is that wider dispersion drastically reduces clarity. If watching a movie, for instance, I have to turn up the center channel to hear dialog, and music is more spacious sounding, but less clear. This could be due to my room having no first reflections, so all reflections are interpreted as echo, which smears the sound. However, this is also contradicted by science that says rooms don't change loudspeaker preference; we hear through the room.

The M2 did beat the Salon 2 every time according to 3 people, which seems to support Dr. Toole's assertion about dispersion preferences being different among individuals.

Every speaker will behave differently in different rooms.Speakers with Controlled directivity will usually have better ability to be placed in a room to avoid early reflections in the midrange and high frequencies.

 

[ferrellms]

Thanks, I do find it interesting that the Kef R3's and Genelecs were the best measuring so far in so much that I'm taking a serious look at the R3s.

I first heard the R3s a couple of years ago. I occasionally visit a hifi store (not many left) to hear what is new and scoff (to myself, of course) at the sound compared to my treated room, DSP-corrected, subwoofered, Genelec home studio. I heard the R3s and was scoffing no more. Other than the un-EQed bass without a sub in the showroom, the R3s were at least in a similar league. I recommended them to a friend, he got them, and loves them. I heard them at his place and was impressed once again.

 

[ferrellms]

I guess I can be a bit more patient. Not moving to my new place until June.

Have you considered price? The R3s are priced at a small fraction of the speakers you are talking about!

 

[Johan Liebert]

Have you considered price? The R3s are priced at a small fraction of the speakers you are talking about!

Good point, I'm not made of money even though I'm single.

 

[Zvu]

Check out Taipuu three way speaker:

https://taipuuspeakers.fi/en/taipuu-speakers-dsp-active-speakers/

It is designed by Kimmo Saunisto, the maker of VituixCad

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Spinorama or not Spinorama... is this the question?

pls ask to Floyd Toole, best speaker is the one with flat freq response on axis and coherent off axis.
why?
because "those ones" shows highest correlation with educated listeners judgment
so what?
because we do not listen in anechoic chamber or soccer fields but we listen inside our houses, between walls, floor and ceilings. so speakers that has lower interaction with the room better reproduce the recorder message (music,sound,...).
so what rooms do?
Room introduces reflections that create picks and nulls in the freq response... coloration.
what we can do?
minimize room effect, (by improving spinorama is only one piece of the mission).
who do this better?
speakers that "DIRECT" sound to listeners and avoid to spread it elsewhere. Cardiodid? yes! Pro sound knows this since played in educated market.
we need to avoid early reflections and eventually (since we can't) have early reflection similar to direct sound.

if above is correct (science is based on verified experiments and theories) i derive the following:

Best (regardless of spinorama) Speakers are:

B&O 90
Kii three +BXT
Kii three
Dutch & Dutch 8C
...
...
...
among not Cardioid
JBL M2
Genelec ...

pls. agree or disagree but pls. explain why, your opinion count and will help everyone.

thank you and stay healthy
my Best
Lorenzo

worth to see it
Bruno Putzeys on Kii Three

B&O 90

Dutch & dutch 8C

I think I would also consider the Linkwitz LX-Mini and the LX 521. The late Sigfried Linkwitz did a lot of work on directivity with those speakers. I'd also consider the Gradient 1.4s and a late, mysterious suprise entrant the GGNTK2 M2.

 

[TheInquiring]

Many traditional, "boxed" designs have been discussed. Any reasons, dear experts, open baffle speakers (Spatial Audio, e.g.) did not receive much of your attention at all? Any "inherent" drawbacks, unsatisfactory Spinorama results, perhaps?
I've been looking for any objective independently done measurements of open baffle designs, and so far did not find anything...

 

[q3cpma]

Check out Taipuu three way speaker:

https://taipuuspeakers.fi/en/taipuu-speakers-dsp-active-speakers/

It is designed by Kimmo Saunisto, the maker of VituixCad

Nice, but all the models are quite beamy after 10 kHz. I really like the look of the 3-way, but with a woofer/midrange crossover at 150 Hz, I fear for the IMD of the coaxial tweeter.

 

[Zvu]

Having a bit narrower directivity is a matter of taste since op did not define what does best spinorama means to him. To one it could be very low and to other very high di. To me it means that there are no power response peaks or dips. But your worries about IMD would be unsubstantiated given the steepnes of acoustic slope and low Xmax for wanted/needed loudness. You can simulate excursion very easy.

 

[Chromatischism]

A lot of discussion about the KEF R3. I would be hesitant. If buying them, I would not purchase only them - I would choose another pair of speakers, even two, to trial simultaneously.

Why do I say that? Because I tracked reviews through 2019 where 3 speakers featured in many $2k speaker comparisons: the KEF R3, the Ascend Sierra 2-EX, and the Buchardt S400. All three have been measured here now. The R3 looks like it measures the best, with the S400 second, and the Sierra 2 third. The Sierra 2-EX will measure the same in the treble, it just has an upgraded woofer. So what did listening tests reveal?

In the following list, the bolded speaker was preferred. Note, please don't start hooting and hollering over the names of any of these reviewers you may or may not like - I think it's important to reference them in case someone wants to look into that source and try to understand the reasons for their preference. I didn't however name forum members. With that said, what's most important here is the aggregate of the reviews.

1 YouTube reviewer (Z Reviews) with KEF R3 and Buchardt S400
1 YouTube reviewer (The Next Best Thing Studio) with KEF R3 and Buchardt S400 (this featured 2 people, and both agreed)
1 AVS member with KEF R3 and Sierra-2EX (the wife also agreed)
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Philharmonic BMR and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Philharmonic BMR and Buchardt S400

The R3 ended with 0 for 5 against competing speakers. So the question is: if it's so good, why was the KEF R3 always the speaker that ended up being returned?

Most people thought the R3 was too harsh in the highs compared to the other speakers.

Bottom line...if really curious about the KEF R3, or any speaker for that matter, choose 2 others and buy them on the 1st day of your credit card's billing cycle so the bill won't be due for 2 months. You'll have plenty of time to pick which one sounds best in your room and send the others back. Good luck.

 

[echopraxia]

A lot of discussion about the KEF R3. I would be hesitant. If buying them, I would not purchase only them - I would choose another pair of speakers, even two, to trial simultaneously.

Why do I say that? Because I tracked reviews through 2019 where 3 speakers featured in many $2k speaker comparisons: the KEF R3, the Ascend Sierra 2-EX, and the Buchardt S400. All three have been measured here now. The R3 looks like it measures the best, with the S400 second, and the Sierra 2 third. The Sierra 2-EX will measure the same in the treble, it just has an upgraded woofer. So what did listening tests reveal?

In the following list, the bolded speaker was preferred. Note, please don't start hooting and hollering over the names of any of these reviewers you may or may not like - I think it's important to reference them in case someone wants to look into that source and try to understand the reasons for their preference. I didn't however name forum members. With that said, what's most important here is the aggregate of the reviews.

1 YouTube reviewer (Z Reviews) with KEF R3 and Buchardt S400
1 YouTube reviewer (The Next Best Thing Studio) with KEF R3 and Buchardt S400 (this featured 2 people, and both agreed)
1 AVS member with KEF R3 and Sierra-2EX (the wife also agreed)
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Sierra-2EX and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Philharmonic BMR and Buchardt S400
1 AVS member with Philharmonic BMR and Buchardt S400

The R3 ended with 0 for 5 against competing speakers. So the question is: if it's so good, why was the KEF R3 always the speaker that ended up being returned?

Most people thought the R3 was too harsh in the highs compared to the other speakers.

Bottom line...if really curious about the KEF R3, or any speaker for that matter, choose 2 others and buy them on the 1st day of your credit card's billing cycle so the bill won't be due for 2 months. You'll have plenty of time to pick which one sounds best in your room and send the others back. Good luck.

This is a mystery to me as well. I am probably the one who posted the blind comparison of the R3 to the 2EX mentioned in your list, though the credit of the golden ears test subject goes to my wife (though we swapped, and my blind listening results also agreed with few exceptions, all of which tilted more in the 2EX’s favor).

What makes this more confusing is that now I own the Genelec 8351B, and the experience is completely different than the R3 in that they sound absolutely stunning out of the box even with no room correction (in the same room with average acoustics that I compared the R3 vs 2EX), whereas the R3 sounded great and was clearly technically excellent, but just lacked “something” - whatever that is - to make me enjoy them as much as other speakers.

Initially, I and others around here and AVS forum considered the hypothesis that the Sierra 2EX’s ultra wide treble dispersion accounted for the preference. It certainly did lend some weight to the 2EX in terms of what we wanted for this room (equal and consistent sound throughout the room with just a stereo pair and sub), and because it creates a more “surround” effect inherently. But the idea that horizontal dispersion alone lead to the subjective preference victory of the 2EX no longer can be true, given that I’ve now listened to the Genelec 8351B in that room, and it absolutely dominates every other speaker I have aside from the Neumann KH310 (which it beats by a easily perceivable margin, but not as extreme as vs my passive speakers). The 8351B has a bit narrower horizontal dispersion than the KH310, and still beats them. It is narrower than the Revel F206, and it utterly dominates them (and so does the KH310).

So I am starting to think that these extreme superior performance of my active speakers over my passives may be mostly explained due to how incredibly flat their frequency response is across the entire range. In contrast, most speakers — including the KEF R3 have a big midbass hump, and various FR flaws in the mids and treble that simply do not exists at all in my active speakers.

Therefore, another theory for why the R3 tends not to impress is due to its somewhat shallow (just a few db) but quite broad midrange dip and treble hump (as well as bass hump), which could equivalently be described as recessed mids and upper treble.

Recessed mids and upper treble does seem to explain my subjective impression of the R3’s flaws. And, I quickly tried EQing my 8351B to act similarly and it definitely did create a boring almost muted/muffled sound that reminds me slightly of what I found boring of the R3’s sound.

So it’s quite possible that wide bandwidth FR flaws in the R3 (which should be quite fixable with DSP) explain why it loses in these comparisons. But I can’t know for sure as I returned the R3. I kind of wish I kept it so I could compare an EQ’ed R3 against my 8351B’s now, but as it is I already have too many speakers and need to start selling some

 

[kevinh]

If by "they" you mean Harman, I propose that along with Genelec they were and remain leaders in active loudspeaker technology. I believe their first important fully self powered monitor was introduced by JBL in 1991-2(ish), that would have been the LSR28P. Also introduced in the same time frame (early-mid 90s) was the highly successful EON line, probably the first of the small portable 2 way PA speakers of its type. Mackie didn't introduce their products until a couple of years later and they were done with the help of Cal Perkins who was one of the lead engineers on the original EON project. JBL led the way on that entire class of products.


Some of the first powered loudspeakers were JBL monitor speakers. With the addition of the SE401 Stereo Energizer, introduced in 1964, any pair of monitor speakers could be converted to self-powered operation with the second speaker powered by the first. In 1995 JBL brought the active EONs to market. They were so successful with them that the pattern for small self powered speakers for use in PA was set and soon we saw Mackie et.al. copying the concept. In fact, Mackie hired Cal Perkins who was a lead engineer on the EON project to fast track their own copy of the concept. The rest have followed: Event, Behringer, KRK, Carvin, ....Dutch and Dutch.....Kii.....all relatively late to the scene but now leading the charge for the last holdouts: home hifi people who just seem to love their amps and receivers. (I know I like mine)!

Shortly thereafter, we saw the introduction of the LSR28P followed by a full line (still there in updated form) of active loudspeakers. Even the M2 can be considered a further development/variant of this concept as it is intended to be used with specific Crown and BSS developed amplification and DSP although in this case that stuff is not encapsulated in the box which does leave the door open to other electronic options. But you still need their DSP to complete the thing as conceived.

Indeed, there are so many examples of active JBL loudspeakers in both consumer and pro applications that it disproves the notion of a lack of interest. The lack of interest is, if anything, with non-pro consumers, not the manufacturers who profit by selling you the whole package, not just the speakers. As for KEF vs JBL/Revel, I have owned KEF coaxial speakers (105/3s....only the tweeter being coaxial, just as with the Blades.....also KEF LS50s) and Genelecs (mine were not coaxial, just active). My all time favorites for use as home loudspeakers remain my Salon 2s, neither active nor coaxial. I have a pair of LSR 4326s as well which of course are active monitors with internal DSP. Aside: I oversaw sales of Genelec in the Pacific Northwest from the beginning of their run here (late '80s IIRC) until the development of the LSR line at JBL when I had to choose between the two as they had become intolerant competitors (JBL forced our hand making it a strictly financial decision).

Regarding the notion of the Uni-Q approach bring inherently superior, KEF makes lovely speakers but at this point they have nothing (Including the Blade or Blade 2) that I consider better than my current Salon2s (by measurement or to listen to) but all are clearly welcome to their own opinions.

Nobody cares how we achieve a given goal in any design discipline unless our effort is either sub par (then everybody REALLY doesn't care) or demonstrably better (in which case everybody will copy us). This is one of those rare cases where the destination is more important than the road you took to get there.

I am not arguing against co-ax designs. They have their places in the repertoire. But if you believe that coax is the best way to go, I 'll argue that it is simply another way to "get there." Theoretical advantages are just that: theoretical. In any case, there is more than one way to design a single point source loudspeaker (see MBL, Walsh, German Physics, etc). Coaxial has it's own disadvantages therefore I direct you to Mr. Doppler and how LF propagation in coaxial drivers has significant potential to increase IM distortion within the passband. (see Tannoy)

One more thing: Harman via Toole, Voecks, Olive, Welti (and others) virtually invented the Spinorama concept. I think it's a terrible handle for this measurement approach but I understand why it's so named. The name came out of (their and others') research into early reflections. To simplify getting the m measurements they built a turntable to physically rotate the speaker gaining the data we now take for granted as necessary for speaker evaluation.

Simply stated, there is more than one way to skin the cat. And as regards, waveguides, same, same. Been around and used by everybody for decades. All these varied approaches are nothing more than tools in a box that can be successfully exploited in many ways for different needs. Even more stuff to annoy: Harman (through its many divisions) made and continues to produce many coaxial products (reference just about every ceiling speaker they make) but they do seem to have an aversion to including them in their higher end monitor type products. Does that mean they are unaware or disinterested in the concept? I don 't think so.


Just for laughs......Bet you've never seen one of these before! View attachment 61175

An early powered speaker the wiki article missed was the Braun LV 1020's, They were great speakers at the time. They got me interested in Hi End sound.

https://flic.kr/p/RVvcNN
Tri amped, opamps weren't the most reliable.