Worst measuring loudspeaker?

[Purité Audio]

Universal condemnation might actually force companies such as Borrensen to pull their socks up, although I very much doubt that.
Keith

 

[DanielT]

Michael Børresen and Lars Kristensen, heads of Audio Group Denmark, where the original founders of Raidho. Kristensen had a past in Nordost as well. According Roy Gregory on The Audio Beat, Raidho original designs were affected by similar issues. Then, Raidho collapsed in 2009 and was took over by Dantax (a solid audio company of Denmark) that restructured the brand and brought it to a certain success in the following years. Børresen and Kristensen were re-employed under Dantax. At some point, the Scansonic brand was launched as a more affordable spin-off of Raidho. Finally, the two parted ways with Dantax/Raidho and went on with their new ventures. It seems the two are very good marketers, but lack a track record in electroacoustic engineering. Børresen's ideas about speaker drivers are somewhat eccentric and do not make much sense to me, besides the fact that they seem to misuse terms like "induction" or "hysteresis". I simply believe their beliefs are totally detached from common wisdom about speaker design.

Aha, Raidho you say. Have these speakers from Raidho already been brought up in the thread? Otherwise, check out these:

Raidho TD3.8. $103,000 (pair):

Raidho TD3.8 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements Due to the Raidho TD3.8's bulk, I wasn't able to bring it up the stairs from the driveway to our living room, where I usually measure loudspeakers. I therefore measured the speaker in the driveway, keeping its front baffle turned away from the sun so the drive units would...

www.stereophile.com

Raidho D-2.1 for £37,995-£41,995, or around $50,000 (for a pair? )

Raidho D-2.1 loudspeaker Lab Report

Raidho claims an 89dB sensitivity for the D-2.1 but that is remote from the 83.0dB pink noise figure we recorded. Impedance could have been reduced to increase this somewhat but Raidho appears to have preferred to make the D-2.1 a little easier to drive than many modern floorstanders. Although...

www.hifinews.com

FR on those speakers looks terrible. As the icing on the cake in this crazy "High-End" segment, of course a hefty price tag for them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

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.”

What parts of this speaker are satisfactory or good? Are there not better speakers that at least match it in those areas and cost less?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Oh and I just reviewed his conclusions. Near the end of Erin's subjective description he says he measured both and they measure the same. So if there was concern one of them was messed up and one was fine that isn't the case. So we have a speaker that measured so badly he knew people would wonder if it was damaged. As I said, broken as designed. Just prior to that he is explaining how some describe it as having bright or excessive highs, while he hears a depressed hole in the midrange. And how some people will hear it as highs hot and others as fine highs but midrange suckout. In other words he is explaining how subjective descriptions will vary in describing the same problems of the speaker. How does anyone watch his review and think Erin is saying this speaker is okay? Erin says, "When you see the data you are probably going to think, is this thing broken? No it is not, they both measure the same."

Don't worry folks, we should just suck it up and give the company an $11,000/pair participation trophy.

 

[MattHooper]

I think you are giving the impression Erin's review is better than it is of the Borreson.

If I am, that seems like a subjective assessment on both your or my part.

I think it’s very clear from any viewer having followed Erin that he would never buy this loudspeaker. But he did his best to point out what it does well and what it doesn’t do well.
I just don’t understand why that is a problem.
I mean his review tells YOU all you need to know, right? Do you need him declaring to you “ don’t buy the speaker?”

He likewise tried to give any viewer the information they could use in, deciding whether that speaker was still of interest.
I think you did a terrific job describing the nature of the speaker. Job done.

I'm at a loss to see why you are on some crusade to take up for this.

Some people don’t necessarily want speakers judged on a “ good or bad, buy this or don’t buy this” basis. They want to know how a loudspeaker performs and have that final judgement left up to themselves.
What exactly is wrong with that?

I also think you are painting a worse picture of what ASR members as a group do in judging speakers.

I don’t mean to, and I am trying to avoid that.
That’s why I carefully wrote:

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

and I was responding directly to somebody who, I think, was going in that direction direction with a characterization of the loudspeaker that seemed to imply, it would sound worse than it probably does.

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

Because declarations that are design is good or bad just brushes past details and nuance that are actually informative. Do we want to know only broad strokes about how gear performs, or do we want to understand in greater detail?

Take a hypothetical speaker review: It’s informative to look at a design and observe for instance “ it has some unwanted deviations in the frequency response which is bad” but “ look here, the distortion at high volumes is very low, the pair matching of drivers and design results in very precise imaging… and these are actually good things.”

It’s not all just black-and-white.

And Erin did a good job of elucidating what the speaker did well and what it did poorly. As I say, this is more informative than just “ it’s a bad design.”

 

[Blumlein 88]

If I am, that seems like a subjective assessment on both your or my part.

I think it’s very clear from any viewer having followed Erin that he would never buy this loudspeaker. But he did his best to point out what it does well and what it doesn’t do well.
I just don’t understand why that is a problem.
I mean his review tells YOU all you need to know, right? Do you need him declaring to you “ don’t buy the speaker?”

He likewise tried to give any viewer the information they could use in, deciding whether that speaker was still of interest.
I think you did a terrific job describing the nature of the speaker. Job done.



Some people don’t necessarily want speakers judged on a “ good or bad, buy this or don’t buy this” basis. They want to know how a loudspeaker performs and have that final judgement left up to themselves.
What exactly is wrong with that?



I don’t mean to, and I am trying to avoid that.
That’s why I carefully wrote:

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

and I was responding directly to somebody who, I think, was going in that direction direction with a characterization of the loudspeaker that seemed to imply, it would sound worse than it probably does.




Because declarations that are design is good or bad just brushes past details and nuance that are actually informative. Do we want to know only broad strokes about how gear performs, or do we want to understand in greater detail?

Take a hypothetical speaker review: It’s informative to look at a design and observe for instance “ it has some unwanted deviations in the frequency response which is bad” but “ look here, the distortion at high volumes is very low, the pair matching of drivers and design results in very precise imaging… and these are actually good things.”

It’s not all just black-and-white.

And Erin did a good job of elucidating what the speaker did well and what it did poorly. As I say, this is more informative than just “ it’s a bad design.”

Did you watch the same video I did? Did you see where Erin puts up the results of the Wharfdale Super Linton, and says, "it retails for $2500/pr with stands. You can see how much more linear it is. It will sound more natural, more neutral and more accurate than what you get with this." He goes on to show the waterfall plot with the bass ringing even though he usually sees no reason to even show that plot in reviews. It has three resonances, but the 80 hz one he said is the worst he has measured or heard to date. And it matched what he heard from the woofer. I mean we are way beyond some critique of black and white ratings here.

 

[MattHooper]

What parts of this speaker are satisfactory or good?

Already mentioned. Erin did find some hangover in the bass, but also found it. He enjoyed the puniness of the bass. He said that the design resulted in excellent sound staging and precise imaging. He found that highs of themselves sounded quite good and natural. Would you find the speakers satisfactory? No. I can gather from the review that they are not for me either. Having followed Erin for quite a while, I find his assessments to be somewhat informative.

How does anyone watch his review and think Erin is saying this speaker is okay?

The very fact you were asking that question should tell you all you need to know!

Erin has given you the information you need to understand: The speaker is clearly not
“ OK” based on the criteria you were looking for, and Erin clearly stated, given his goals this speaker is not for him either.

He was able to give you the information you need, while also pointing out the speaker performed nicely in certain areas. You can look at that and say “ for me, none of that makes up for the uneven frequency response, and the ringing in the bass.”

So I think the viewer is well informed, can make his own choice, and doesn’t need Erin telling him what to buy or not.

I mean we are way beyond some critique of black and white ratings here.

Every time you reference information from Erin’s review and how it helped you understand the nature of those Borresen speakers, you are making my point. Erin gave plenty of information allowing you to make that assessment!

But if you are arguing that Erin should ONLY discuss what the speaker does poorly, and just leave out what the speaker did satisfactory or well (such as good staging and precise imaging) I very much disagree and you leave me baffled as to why you would even take that approach.

I mean even Amir will point out both objectively and subjectively when a speaker is performing poorly in one area, but better in another.

That’s all I am arguing for. As complete a picture as possible, and broad stroke “ this is a broken speaker” simply doesn’t give as informative and nuanced a picture as talking about the strengths and weaknesses of a design.

I remain pretty baffled that we are having any disagreement here.

 

[pablolie]

I am not sure about this topic. Seems to simply use the excuse of measurements to trash brands that aren't ASR darlings? My attitude is always "If you don't have anything positive to say about XYZ, why bother to comment if others are happy with it?".

I am far more interested in establishing why people claim to hear differences between nearly equally great measuring speakers when their measured patterns seem near identical at +/-1dB here and there.

 

[dfuller]

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 mean, I get having taste for a speaker that is brighter or darker or whatever, but this is just broken. That 80hz peak makes things sound chesty and thumpy but in my experience with a speaker with a hump at a similar region (ATC SCM25As) it's not particularly natural sounding - just over emphasized kick drums and the like. But this peak, unlike the ATC's, is also sharp enough that it rings like a bell. This is of course disregarding the socking great resonances at 2-300hz and at 2KHz, the massive directivity error throughout, the fact that it has a wild impedance curve...

 

[Sokel]

A lower blind preference rating would not equate to “ sounds just as bad as a couple of drivers placed on a table.”

You're right,I should specify.
Is worst (not just) as couple of drivers placed on a coffee (not any) table pointing upwards.
At least that's what the charts are showing.

I guess its enclosure comes as a bonus.
Good news is that according to that school of thought any quarter (not even half) baked DIY speaker may find someone that likes it (other than its builder)

(dear DIYers my sincere apologies for using you so unfairly,I promise is a silly (as all) analogy )

 

[MattHooper]

Aha, Raidho you say. Have these speakers from Raidho already been brought up in the thread? Otherwise, check out these:

Raidho TD3.8. $103,000 (pair):
View attachment 407485View attachment 407486

Raidho TD3.8 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements Due to the Raidho TD3.8's bulk, I wasn't able to bring it up the stairs from the driveway to our living room, where I usually measure loudspeakers. I therefore measured the speaker in the driveway, keeping its front baffle turned away from the sun so the drive units would...

www.stereophile.com

Raidho D-2.1 for £37,995-£41,995, or around $50,000 (for a pair? )
View attachment 407488

View attachment 407489

Raidho D-2.1 loudspeaker Lab Report

Raidho claims an 89dB sensitivity for the D-2.1 but that is remote from the 83.0dB pink noise figure we recorded. Impedance could have been reduced to increase this somewhat but Raidho appears to have preferred to make the D-2.1 a little easier to drive than many modern floorstanders. Although...

www.hifinews.com

FR on those speakers looks terrible. As the icing on the cake in this crazy "High-End" segment, of course a hefty price tag for them.

When I was doing a big speaker search listening to lots of different loudspeakers, I came across some Raidho speakers that the proprietor was selling secondhand and asked if I wanted to listen. So I gave them a run-through with lots of my test tracks.

To me they sounded just like this measurement:

I was immediately aware of a boosted overemphasized midbass, that lent it lots of punch, but obnoxiously so.

Likewise, I quickly heard a frequency dip just like the above, which robbed many of the tracks I loved of their presence and immediacy. The energy I was used to in the mids and especially upper mids made everything in that range take a backstep in the mix. They managed to make some of my most energetic music with lots of percussion up there sound lackadaisical and soft.

No way could I live with them!

(but hey, that was just my perception from sighted listening, so what would I know? )

I later found out that this is apparently a house sound with that brand. Apparently they are going for a specific sculpted response which creates a sense of recessed “mid concert hall” perspective that they think sounds more natural. Definitely not what I was looking for.

 

[MattHooper]

I mean, I get having taste for a speaker that is brighter or darker or whatever, but this is just broken.

I don’t have any problem with somebody describing the speaker as “broken.”
That’s going to be their opinion. And it can be certainly a reasonable opinion when they explain the criteria by which they deemed the speaker as broken. No problem whatsoever.

I just wouldn’t find the opinion “ broken” to be very informative as to how the speaker performs.

And if somebody gives enough information about how the speaker performs, then to be somebody’s opinion about the speaker
“ broken” or otherwise, is superfluous. I’ve got what I need to know about the speaker without that additional word attached to it.
If I’m bringing the same criteria, I’m going to conclude that the speaker is bad or broken simply from the information supplied.

So this is why I’m saying, it’s fine if people want to say this speaker is a bad design. But a thorough review like Erin’s for me is both more informative and makes those opinions superfluous.

 

[Purité Audio]

What does it matter who in their right mind would purchase such a broken design.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

The great thing about a place like ASR, and I throw Erin in there as well, is that you get some really detailed technical information about the performance of gear, from which you can make your own decisions.

It is indeed wonderful as well for revealing
“ the Emperor has no clothes”’ in many cases. I love the reviews that reveal claims by cable makers are nonsense. As well as measurement oriented reviews showing that manufacturer claims about an amplifiers performance - power ratings, distortion levels - are bullshit or misleading.

And when it comes to loudspeakers, what is revealed to be truly going on in a technical sense can be very informative.

So many audio companies make general technical claims about the type of distortions their design is meant to minimize, and the type of performance they claim to have maximized.

Measurements can reveal of these claims to be pure bullshit: despite all the manufacturer claims, the speakers inhibit all sorts of distortions.

And I think, of course that a company like Borresen should we put through the same ringer. Go to their website or watch video interviews with their marketing or engineer guys, and you’ll see all sorts of claims about how they are lowering things like inductance, resonances, and other things I find to be highly important. And so we get to see the measurements reveal whether they are actually achieving this (as far as I can tell indicates… not so much).

Some audio, reviewer or audiophile telling us “ the speaker sounds nice in various ways” is often inadequate for truly being able to judge the engineering and technical claims often made by these companies.

Again, this is why good measurements are so valuable.

And all of that is perfectly compatible with everything else I’ve written in this thread.

 

[dfuller]

I just wouldn’t find the opinion “ broken” to be very informative as to how the speaker performs.

I would. If someone says "this design is broken" I would (likely correctly) assume that its performance is exceedingly poor.

I am far more interested in establishing why people claim to hear differences between nearly equally great measuring speakers when their measured patterns seem near identical at +/-1dB here and there.

Because measurements aren't that simple. MD, short term compression, phase response, etc are all really useful measurements that don't usually come up in a standard suite.

 

[MattHooper]

I would. If someone says "this design is broken" I would (likely correctly) assume that its performance is exceedingly poor.

But you wouldn’t know which aspect of its performance was poor. Why it was judged that way at all. Or in what aspects it might perform pretty well.

I think many people want to know that type of information. I’m guessing in general you do too. (?)

 

[multichannel_guy]

Klipsch has historically been the king of boosted bass, boosted treble, midrange holes and they have been in business forever. It lets me know that many of you guys like the smiling curve speaker , like your speakers smiling at you with midrange holes.

I guess Borresen plans to keep smiling and stay in business like the vast number of smiling speakers.

Smiling curve fans can never be rehabilitated. They grew up that way. The smiley speaker seed was sown at a tender age for such guys.

 

[MattHooper]

Looking at the many comments under Erin’’s review most are quite (rightly) critical of the Borresen for producing speakers with this many problems.

Some people mentioning they’ve heard them and they sounded “ wrong.”

I looked at the Audiogon discussion, which has some predictably head-on-table comments about the worth of measurements, but also some people commenting they heard the speakers saying they didn’t like the sound, from their listening: not coherent, highs too emphasized, hole in the mid range…

There’s an owner of the X3s who simply describes them as “ musical, and detailed” which I would find uninformative to say the least.

Somebody there commented that Michael Borresen is one of the world’s most talented speaker designers. I replied essentially: that sure isn’t what the measurements are telling us!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Klipsch has historically been the king of boosted bass, boosted treble, midrange holes and they have been in business forever. It lets me know that many of you guys like the smiling curve speaker , like your speakers smiling at you with midrange holes.

I guess Borresen plans to keep smiling and stay in business like the vast number of smiling speakers.

Smiling curve fans can never be rehabilitated. They grew up that way. The smiley speaker seed was sown at a tender age for such guys.

This is more of smile like someone with a couple of teeth missing and a scar on their upper lip causing it to droop asymmetrically. Not even a good smiley face.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

This X3 speaker doesn't deliver a "sculpted" sound. If anything, it looks like the response was shaped with a hand grenade and a felling axe.

Stop defending such overpriced cheapskates -it only benefits the charlatans themselves, not anyone else.