Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[MattHooper]

That is an extremely generous reading. There are different ways of getting ±3dB, and this...
View attachment 510268

...is not a good one. Big hole, big peak, big hole, lots of jaggy resonances. Plus channel to channel variances.

And BTW beaming in a flat panel does not cause a peak on-axis. The energy is still going wide, but it is being cancelled by out-of-phase energy from the other side of the panel. The peak is most likely severe resonance.

Ha!

If my Quad 63s actually sounded like that I’m fairly sure I would’ve noticed and not enjoyed them very much.

Here's measurements of some that were rebuilt

View attachment 510331

That’s more like it .

That looks a lot more like the sound I experienced in my room with the Quad 63s.

 

[kyuu]

Ø Audio Verdande loudspeaker Measurements​

In room:

Oof. $45000 for that.

 

[DanielT]

Ø Audio Verdande loudspeaker Measurements​

In room:

With a different measurement distance, 3m/9.8ft vs John Atkinson's 1m/3.3ft performed by SEAS this is the result:

A little less suck out around 1 kHz then but not good. BUT if I see right: 70Hz F3 (or if I should be generous 60 Hz). With a speaker that has a 15 inch woffer at a price of $45000. Thats pretty bad bass capacity.
Or am I seeing this 70/60 Hz F3 wrong? Is it really that bad?

 

[ChrisG]

IMO, the LF frequency response is so strongly room-dependent that I'd just prefer to have something that has plenty of clean output available, so I can EQ it as I need to.

For example, my current speakers are -3dB at 50Hz, with a fairly gentle rolloff. In my last listening room, the at-LP frequency response peaked at +10dB@40Hz, and was back down to 0dB/nominal at 10Hz. It was an incredibly helpful room.
My current listening room isn't quite as helpful, but I still need an EQ cut around 50Hz, and it's only 4dB of LF boost to get me flat to 20Hz.

In either case, I have 2x 8" woofers per side, which is ample for the ~3m listening distance in a domestic space.



I do wonder if there's a disconnect between countries, based on how their buildings are constructed. I'm in the UK, where walls are typically brick + cement. As a result, we get quite a lot of room gain, which means an anechoically-flat LF response would end up very bass-heavy. In countries where the typical construction is wood+plaster, I can imagine there's a lot less room gain, so a flatter and more extended LF response would be beneficial.

I'd expect the speakers above have been designed to work well in spaces typical of the country of origin, but a 15" woofer per side should mean that EQ could be applied to get a flat response in less-helpful rooms.

 

[Doenerkunde]

A little less suck out around 1 kHz then but not good. BUT if I see right: 70Hz F3 (or if I should be generous 60 Hz). With a speaker that has a 15 inch woffer at a price of $45000. Thats pretty bad bass capacity.
Or am I seeing this 70/60 Hz F3 wrong? Is it really that bad?

SEAS anechoic chamber is specified to be accurate for frequencies above 70hz:

https://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=405&Itemid=269

But this might not be the only reason: The Audio Verdande are specified to have a sensitivity of 94dB, so there might be a tradeoff between low frequency extension and efficiency at play.

 

[DanielT]

SEAS anechoic chamber is specified to be accurate for frequencies above 70hz:

https://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=405&Itemid=269

But this might not be the only reason: The Audio Verdande are specified to have a sensitivity of 94dB, so there might be a tradeoff between low frequency extension and efficiency at play.

SEAS anechoic chamber is specified to be accurate for frequencies above 70hz
Sounds like a reasonable explanation, since boxes of up to 300 liters with 15 inch woofers, which the manufacturer says are ultra-linear long stroke extended range should go down to around 20 Hz F3 ish.

But this might not be the only reason: The Audio Verdande are specified to have a sensitivity of 94dB, so there might be a tradeoff between low frequency extension and efficiency at play.

That might also be true. No dedicated sub woffer drivers in those speakers. They operate up to the crossover 800 Hz so...But okay let's not say 20 Hz F3 but something 35-40 Hz they should be able to handle. If not even that why then so damn big speaker boxes? Vast of volume that is.

 

[Fidji]

With a different measurement distance, 3m/9.8ft vs John Atkinson's 1m/3.3ft performed by SEAS this is the result:
View attachment 535663
A little less suck out around 1 kHz then but not good. BUT if I see right: 70Hz F3 (or if I should be generous 60 Hz). With a speaker that has a 15 inch woffer at a price of $45000. Thats pretty bad bass capacity.
Or am I seeing this 70/60 Hz F3 wrong? Is it really that bad?

probably closest to "it sounded like a piece of sh...t" that ever came from well-mannered JA.

As I listened I tried to forget the measured performance, with which I was by then overfamiliar. I found that there was insufficient low bass and too much upper bass. Organ pedal notes and orchestral bass drum didn't have sufficient weight, and cellos sounded over-ripe in their lowest register. The midrange lacked clarity, and while high frequencies seemed smooth and uncolored, the treble balance was consistently polite. Stereo imaging was precise and stable, though there was significantly less soundstage depth on the Portland choral track than I am used to.

while his buddy from Stereophile has wasted some tokens on this senseless blabber;

Although they don't go down to the lowest floor-thumping bass, they provide plenty of beat, bump, and bassline. They produced a wide, high, deep, hyperdetailed stereo image.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this

probably closest to "it sounded like a piece of sh...t" that ever came from well-mannered JA.

As I listened I tried to forget the measured performance, with which I was by then overfamiliar. I found that there was insufficient low bass and too much upper bass. Organ pedal notes and orchestral bass drum didn't have sufficient weight, and cellos sounded over-ripe in their lowest register. The midrange lacked clarity, and while high frequencies seemed smooth and uncolored, the treble balance was consistently polite. Stereo imaging was precise and stable, though there was significantly less soundstage depth on the Portland choral track than I am used to.

contains just as much blabber as this

while his buddy from Stereophile has wasted some tokens on this senseless blabber;

Although they don't go down to the lowest floor-thumping bass, they provide plenty of beat, bump, and bassline. They produced a wide, high, deep, hyperdetailed stereo image.

The saving grace being that at least JA is admitting to the possibility of bias. Of course he wouldn't need to "...forget the measured performance" if he'd measured after he'd listened

 

[Frank Dernie]

SEAS anechoic chamber is specified to be accurate for frequencies above 70hz
Sounds like a reasonable explanation, since boxes of up to 300 liters with 15 inch woofers, which the manufacturer says are ultra-linear long stroke extended range should go down to around 20 Hz F3 ish.

But this might not be the only reason: The Audio Verdande are specified to have a sensitivity of 94dB, so there might be a tradeoff between low frequency extension and efficiency at play.

That might also be true. No dedicated sub woffer drivers in those speakers. They operate up to the crossover 800 Hz so...But okay let's not say 20 Hz F3 but something 35-40 Hz they should be able to handle. If not even that why then so damn big speaker boxes? Vast of volume that is.

The in room measured response is pretty weak below the huge 100Hz peak too though so it is the speaker.

 

[Beave]

SEAS anechoic chamber is specified to be accurate for frequencies above 70hz:

https://www.seas.no/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=405&Itemid=269

But this might not be the only reason: The Audio Verdande are specified to have a sensitivity of 94dB, so there might be a tradeoff between low frequency extension and efficiency at play.

Their claimed sensitivity of 94dB is apparently in reference to 1watt/1meter, not the more common 2.83v/1meter. JA measured a sensitivity of 86dB/2.83v/1m, which is very average. Where the efficiency of these is seen is in the high impedance load they present to an amplifier - a minimum of about 8 Ohms.

So they still require quite a bit of voltage to get loud, but less current than many other speakers of the same sensitivity.

 

[Beave]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this


contains just as much blabber as this



The saving grace being that at least JA is admitting to the possibility of bias. Of course he wouldn't need to "...forget the measured performance" if he'd measured after he'd listened

JA truly has a talent for being polite and avoiding direct criticisms, while somehow still getting his message across in a very, very subtle way.

 

[Mart68]

Ha!

If my Quad 63s actually sounded like that I’m fairly sure I would’ve noticed and not enjoyed them very much.



That’s more like it .

That looks a lot more like the sound I experienced in my room with the Quad 63s.

That's the original ESL not the 63 but the 63 should meausure better. The problem with both speakers is they degrade in multiple areas with time. Only ever had a listen to the 63 one time and they were terrible but I think many owners don't notice the gradual slide and still hear them like they did when they were 'fresh'.

Listened to original ESLs many times, they can be on a sliding scale from terrible to entrancing.

 

[amper42]

Ø Audio Verdande loudspeaker Measurements​

In room:

That frequency response might not sound as bad as it looks?

 

[Frank Dernie]

That frequency response might not sound as bad as it looks?

Perhaps masked by pop and rock but definitely will be very coloured on acoustic instruments.

 

[DSJR]

Ha!

If my Quad 63s actually sounded like that I’m fairly sure I would’ve noticed and not enjoyed them very much.



That’s more like it .

That looks a lot more like the sound I experienced in my room with the Quad 63s.

Even when new, the Quad 57 needed a little bit of 'listener adjustment,' after which the speakers could very effectively 'disappear entirely' from the reproduction chain. They were frail, not really suited to any real playback volume and they do age. Do remember the last ones are forty five or more years old at time of typing this and stock ones WILL have gone off a bit now. Early rebuilders couldn't get the same diaphragm materials I believe and one refurb company in the UK, allowed a loudness switch contour as audiophiles liked it! get a properly refurbished pair as @Mart68 shows above and they can be truly enchanting if not worked too hard

The 63 sounded delightful if raised on stands (the Arcici ones were my favoured types thirty years back as they held the speaker by the sides, supposedly helping rigidity, but the original UK 'Quadropod' ones were good too and the latter angled them back a little as well). Sadly, it seems these days that many are coming unstuck as old adhesives break down, so a well priced used pair could now become expensive to repair-refurbish. I'm not absolutely sure the current ones have fully followed the ideals of the originals, but I don't sell them, have only heard the largest ones fleetingly, so have no idea really.

 

[YSDR]

BUT if I see right: 70Hz F3 (or if I should be generous 60 Hz). With a speaker that has a 15 inch woffer at a price of $45000. Thats pretty bad bass capacity.
Or am I seeing this 70/60 Hz F3 wrong? Is it really that bad?

That's just the frequency response of the low-end which can be altered very easily by placement of the speaker in a room or using EQ. Moreover the LF roll-off is relative gentle (which good if we consider a typical room or boundary gain) in this case and the vent tuning is low (about 20 Hz) so it has the possibility to use electronic EQ boost from 20 Hz and up.

 

[DanielT]

That's just the frequency response of the low-end which can be altered very easily by placement of the speaker in a room or using EQ. Moreover the LF roll-off is relative gentle (which good if we consider a typical room or boundary gain) in this case and the vent tuning is low (about 20 Hz) so it has the possibility to use electronic EQ boost from 20 Hz and up.

If I take EQ.In the case of closed boxes, with gentle roll-off, 12 dB per octave, sure. Then you can perform EQ operations to raise the lowest bass but Hofmann's Iron Law applies. Then at the expense of SPL. If you want lower bass with maintained SPL in that case, add more amp power, if the bass driver has high power so it can handle it in a good way. Which, by the way, is done here, with a small box for the 18 inch woofer but with 1500 watts of power handling available to nibble on, so to speak:

Little Big 18" Subwoofer Build

I’ve been building subwoofers for years now, and I’ve always used car audio drivers. However, I recently started building speakers using pro-audio drivers, specifically mid-woofers and horn loaded compression drivers. I love how dynamic and clean-sounding these drivers are, so it was only...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Josef Anton Hofmann - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Small box, Power: 400 W RMS / 1000 W Peak,
Amir,#1: ...flat to 30 Hz and having extension down to 20 Hz!!! ...

But at the expense of SPL:

LTig, #4:

It just shows that physics still rules. With DSP you can get deeper bass but at the loss of clean SPL.

Palmer Orbit 11 Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the Palmer Orbit 11 Cardioid coaxial professional monitor (powered speaker). It was sent to me by the company and costs US $899 each. This is a cute but super dense and have little thing! :) I don't think filling it with lead...

www.audiosciencereview.com

...and so on.

 

[mps]

Ha!

If my Quad 63s actually sounded like that I’m fairly sure I would’ve noticed and not enjoyed them very much.



That’s more like it .

That looks a lot more like the sound I experienced in my room with the Quad 63s.

Are the posted measurements of the ESL57 or ESL63? I was under the impression that they were for the ESL57.

 

[BobbyTimmons]

The $11,000 electrostatic speakers, which were awarded "product of the year" by a hi-fi magazine, on the bottom tested in Sean Olive's paper "Differences in Performance and Preference of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in Loudspeaker Tests: A Case Study".

 

[MattHooper]

Are the posted measurements of the ESL57 or ESL63? I was under the impression that they were for the ESL57.

Right, yes I missed that they were for the original 57s.

(though still the measurements look more in line with what I heard from my 63s than those other really choppy looking measurements)