Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[YSDR]

How does one even make a speaker with a 10db dip at 200hz. I genuinely don't understand how you do it. You could take almost any typical driver and toss it into a box and you won't get that.

That dip can be a result of a box resonance, look at the impedance wrinkle about 300 Hz.

 

[Ktacos]

That dip can be a result of a box resonance, look at the impedance wrinkle about 300 Hz.

I can't say I've run into a cab resonances causing such a broad and deep dip before, but I guess anything is possible when your speaker is just a huge piece of junk.

 

[MattHooper]

I don't agree.

He made it clear, to me at least, that it had big problems whilst saying some people may like the effect of the shortcomings, though he himself did not.

To say that nobody would prefer it is clearly wrong since not only did the person bringing them for evaluation pay for them plenty of other people do despite every test I have seen showing them to be technically very very bad indeed. It is odd that people like them and I think he was trying to evaluate what out of the blatant shortcomings anyone may like on audition whilst saying he did not. Except he liked the spectacularly bad bass on one track which is weird IMO.

A measured, sensible take. I agree!

He described the essential traits of the speaker, the good and the bad, and went through the measurements correlating them to what he heard. The viewer can decide for themselves if they remain attracted to the speaker and want to hear it for themselves.

Some ASR members may need Erin to yell at the screen “ do not buy these!” but that’s generally not his approach. He basically is trying to let people know what the loudspeakers sound like and why and then he feels it’s up to viewers to decide what they are looking for. That’s a perfectly legitimate approach.

 

[Everett T]

While it's understandable, we also have to say the obvious that it's not a total honest review when the truth isn't clearly shared. He easily heard the anomalies and shortcomings in the AB tests. No one will prefer this kind of response (and other issues related to phase) in the long run with various music material. The speaker is really broken and it should be said so. Price is also ridicolous.

The data is honest, part of the reason I never listen to the subjective comments. We've spent years laughing at Stereophile subjective comments which are never critical, Erin's are subdued at times, but that's not a strike against. IMHO

 

[Purité Audio]

I prefer the ‘do not buy these’ approach, rubbish should be called out, not soft soaped.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

I prefer the ‘do not buy these’ approach, rubbish should be called out, not soft soaped.
Keith

And I think “buy/do not buy” is too crude an approach for many of us. It may be suitable for a consumer who is interested in being told what to buy, but a great many hobbyists are more involved and bring their own levels of experience and discretion to a review.

Erin provides plenty of information about the subjective character of the loudspeaker and it’s effect on music, and then objective measurements where he points out the Sonic consequences of those measurements.

That’s plenty for me and a great many other audiophiles to go on.

I’m a big boy and I don’t need somebody telling me what to buy or not. Give me the information, let me decide. The rest is preaching.

And “ don’t buy this” is ultimately just an expression of someone’s opinion. It’s not some objective fact in the universe. It may not meet their goals, but it could meet mine.

After all there is going to be range of loudspeaker performance, and when does somebody get to be the arbiter of where that line crosses to “ don’t buy this one?” that’s necessarily going to be a subjective person take. Just their opinion.

Even someone on ASR have recognized this saying for instance that “ here is the information telling you that that nice looking expensive speaker cable isn’t going to sound any different from the cheap one. And now that you have that information, and if you still want to buy it, for instance because you value how nice it looks, fine that’s up to you.”

If I had listened to some people’s “ don’t buy this “ opinions on ASR I would’ve missed out on any number of loudspeakers or gear that have provided me tons of enjoyment.

 

[Purité Audio]

Defending really poor ( and expensive ) design again?
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

Defending really poor ( and expensive ) design again?
Keith

Still unable to recognize that other people like things you don’t like, may have different goals than you, and that you don’t have dominion over that with your opinion?

I hope thinking of all those people out there getting pleasure and fun from speakers that you would trash doesn’t keep you awake at night.

It’s possible to give people information without preaching that you don’t want them to buy something.

 

[Sokel]

There's two ways to see this Børresen's data:

-one way is not knowing anything about them other than it is a floorstander and one would logically assume that is probably a burned/abused speaker someone found in some landfill.
-the other way is to know about them and see them.Two tiny bass drivers trying to show as grown-ups with little to no assistance by their enclosure and x-over too probably.

Their distortion and DR test is probably worst than a phone (yes,the one we hold in our hands) and their MD and compression as well.
Don't know what it takes to do that but one can literally throw some drivers on a table and do better.
What a waste.

 

[MattHooper]

There's two ways to see this Børresen's data:

-one way is not knowing anything about them other than it is a floorstander and one would logically assume that is probably a burned/abused speaker someone found in some landfill.
-the other way is to know about them and see them.Two tiny bass drivers trying to show as grown-ups with little to no assistance by their enclosure and x-over too probably.

Their distortion and DR test is probably worst than a phone (yes,the one we hold in our hands) and their MD and compression as well.
Don't know what it takes to do that but one can literally throw some drivers on a table and do better.
What a waste.

Here’s the thing though. The speakers in all probability do not sound nearly as bad as one would infer from your very disparaging description.

It’s sort of like discussing distortions in a SET amp or in vinyl, etc. Where the failings in the measurements can frankly be blown out of proportion in terms of the real world experience of listening, and in this case to the speaker as a whole. It happens fairly often that somebody measuring all loudspeaker points out some liability in the design or measurements, but also reports
“ wasn’t actually as problematic as the measurements suggested during actual listening.”

Erin himself pointed out that subjectively speaking, they were aspects of the speaker that he really did enjoy. He really liked the punchiness of the bass, the highs sounded very good and natural, that they had an engaging spacious presentation with superb imaging layers and focussing. He said the mid range scoop outs were too much for his liking. But somebody else may hear past that and enjoy the loudspeaker, even IF better more neutral designs are available.

The point I’m making isn’t that nobody here should trash the speaker based on it’s measurements, especially against better measuring speakers.

My point is that this trashing can start to imply a loudspeaker sounds worse than it may actually sound to many people. (and that includes many people who have actually heard quite good loudspeakers as well)
And that’s not necessarily helpful either.

 

[Doodski]

imply a loudspeaker sounds worse than it may actually sound to many people. (and that includes many people who have actually heard quite good loudspeakers as well)
And that’s not necessarily helpful either.

But how many is the crux here. Like my PEQ settings how many can handle the tonal qualities that I enjoy so much? Not many.

 

[MattHooper]

But how many is the crux here. Like my PEQ settings how many can handle the tonal qualities that I enjoy so much? Not many.

My point isn’t so so much about lots of people loving this loudspeaker and thinking it’s perfect.

My point has to do with keeping some perspective: that a speaker may have some audible, even obvious deficits, and yet still sound nice in other ways, even to the point that some can still find the experience quite enjoyable. Depending on somebody’s taste and criteria, certain deficits may stick out and ruin the experience, but not for somebody else who may be able to appreciate other qualities on loudspeaker.

My buddy for instance who had the next model up, the X6, was aware earlier on of the scoop in the mid range. And he measured that scoop. But otherwise he found the speaker really enjoyable to listen to - really fun punchy bass, huge wide, spacious soundstage with ultra precise imaging that really impressed him, a high-end that was subjectively smooth (not coarse). Quite enjoyable overall. And the fact he could enjoy the sound is born somewhat of having a different mindset: not judging the speaker couldn’t bad in terms of meeting one single set of objective criteria, but rather just taking in the particular experience of any speaker and appreciating it for what it is. Does it do some not so good stuff? Sure . Does it do some other good stuff that it is enjoyable Yep .

The more vehement reactions to the measurements of this loudspeaker on this site don’t necessarily acknowledge this wider picture

 

[Bjorn]

Lack of low end, very low capacity and high distortion, resonances, terrible on and off axis measurements with a hollow midrang besides the usual problems with a passive design.

Let's not fool ourselves, that isn't something people prefer. Combined with a very high price tag it's a great example of what's wrong with the audio business and part of the reason why it's been dying for years.

As for a dip in the presence area and peaks in the lows, it's obviously a lot better to add that with EQ that can be turned on and off.

When I measured a very expensive PCM speaker at someone's home, the client was boasting of the low extension of the speaker. But the fact was that it hardly had any audible level below about 45 Hz. When he realized how poor the speaker measured he sold it quickly. Facs brought realization to him. A proper AB test against something of high quality would have also likely cut through the fog.

 

[dfuller]

How does one even make a speaker with a 10db dip at 200hz. I genuinely don't understand how you do it. You could take almost any typical driver and toss it into a box and you won't get that.

It might be bad crossover design, might be leakage from the cabinet out the ports, might be both... I'm not sure. Whatever it is, it's bad.

When I measured a very expensive PCM speaker at someone's home, the client was boasting of the low extension of the speaker. But the fact was that it hardly had any audible level below about 45 Hz. When he realized how poor the speaker measured he sold it quickly. Facs brought realization to him. A proper AB test against something of high quality would have also likely cut through the fog.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Unless you're buying the truly massive PMCs (MB or BB line) they really just don't make any sense. The boxes aren't big enough for 1/4 TLs so you get the kind of nonsense that shows up with (if memory serves) the IB2s your client had. It gets worse as they get smaller. The least screwed up smallish PMC I've seen was a full-sized tower, but just a small (6.5"?) 2-way design.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What is with the defending broken as designed speakers on the basis someone might like them or maybe they don't sound as bad as you would think? And then it is not like they are some budget effort, oh no, they cost the price of a good used car.

Maybe we need a blind shootout between one of the Borreson and a Zu loudspeaker. Best, worst loudspeaker?

 

[Sokel]

7 ports???
That can almost be translated as no enclosure

 

[DMill]

What is with the defending broken as designed speakers on the basis someone might like them or maybe they don't sound as bad as you would think? And then it is not like they are some budget effort, oh no, they cost the price of a good used car.

Maybe we need a blind shootout between one of the Borreson and a Zu loudspeaker. Best, worst loudspeaker?

I almost got sucked into the Zu speaker. I loved the idea of the company and the design. Then I started doing a bit of research here. So glad for ASR, it’s why I don’t mind sending a few bucks to keep the site alive. Really nothing compared to the thousands I would’ve wasted.

 

[MattHooper]

Let's not fool ourselves, that isn't something people prefer.

In case that is aimed towards what I’ve been writing: my main point is certainly not that people would choose this loudspeaker and blind testing over a Neumann or Revel speaker.

It’s that the speaker may not sound as horrible as people imply when looking at the measurements. A lower blind preference rating would not equate to “ sounds just as bad as a couple of drivers placed on a table.”

This is where across-the-board ratings of “ good or bad” isn’t particularly helpful for understanding how individual loudspeakers actually sound. One should be able to acknowledge if a speaker is doing some things pleasingly, even if not other things. As Erin does. And that it’s not always easy to precisely predict how loudspeaker will sound with a certain range of music.

I think it’s also worth noting: There are plenty of people here who have made their own particular compromises, which are not compromises other people are happy making. And that includes within the span of people generally seeking accuracy as well.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In case that is aimed towards what I’ve been writing: my main point is certainly not that people would choose this loudspeaker and blind testing over a Neumann or Revel speaker.

It’s that the speaker may not sound as horrible as people imply when looking at the measurements. A lower blind preference rating would not equate to “ sounds just as bad as a couple of drivers placed on a table.”

This is where across-the-board ratings of “ good or bad” isn’t particularly helpful for understanding how individual loudspeakers actually sound. One should be able to acknowledge if a speaker is doing some things pleasingly, even if not other things. As Erin does. And that it’s not always easy to precisely predict how loudspeaker will sound with a certain range of music.

I think it’s also worth noting: There are plenty of people here who have made their own particular compromises, which are not compromises other people are happy making. And that includes within the span of people generally seeking accuracy as well.

I think you are giving the impression Erin's review is better than it is of the Borreson. I also think you are over-estimating how many people would buy it and be happy with it. Something we don't really know. This speaker is expensive. I'm at a loss to see why you are on some crusade to take up for this. I also think you are painting a worse picture of what ASR members as a group do in judging speakers. They allow plenty of room for those with other preferences and for speakers that aren't top designs. This particular speaker is not something just off the best or with a few idiosyncrasies. It is a broken design. I've heard broken designs that some people love.

Okay, well somebody loves it, not everyone makes the same choices, it is expensive, it performs poorly, but we shouldn't be so black and white. Er, WHAT?

What is the point of having learned what separates good designs from excellent and very clearly what is poor if we in the end say oh well, somebody will have other ideas and like this. Or it may be very poor in measurements, but it doesn't sound that bad. Why put up with that most especially as it is expensive. For that money you could buy a Dutch and Dutch and EQ it to sound that way. Why would that not be a superior choice even if you like this sound? You wouldn't be stuck with it if it did not wear well over time. That is an idea I have expressed many times here. Get your rig transparent as possible and then season to your taste with signal processing.

 

[MattHooper]

What is with the defending broken as designed speakers on the basis someone might like them or maybe they don't sound as bad as you would think?

Well, that depends on whether you care about truth and nuance, over simple dichotomies “ good or bad” based on a personally selected objective criteria.

What exactly is wrong with being able to say:
This piece of audio gear or loudspeaker “ sounds like this..,?” (supported by measurements.). And if one needs to use good and bad criteria, “has poor performance with respect to A,B,C… but satisfactory or very good performance with D,E,F?

To me that is being informative. More informative than just “ the speaker is designed broken.” It still leaves somebody just as free to look at that and say “ for my purposes, that speaker is trash.”

I find for instance even my own friend’s impressions, recognizing some of the deficits, but telling me the reasons the speaker was nonetheless lots of fun to listen to, is more interesting and helpful than “ it’s a broken speaker.”