Yamaha HS5 Powered Monitor Review

[BYRTT]

.....The current mic specs are these.....

Thanks that microphone has a signature on its own and your sweeps corrected for mirror of microphone looks as below..

Normalize the 1 meter measurement set to Amir's spindata get below and think looks not that far..

 

[musictracer]

Thanks that microphone has a signature on its own and your sweeps corrected for mirror of microphone looks as below..

View attachment 80358

Normalize the 1 meter measurement set to Amir's spindata get below and think looks not that far..

View attachment 80361

Nice work!.
Well it is obvious that in the area of interest (500-1000 hz) there is an equal boost over the spectrum with your filter applied, so the mic doesn't seem to interfere much in terms of relativity of different frequencies level (again, in that particular area).
Furthermore it is obvious that there is a roughly 3 db deviation between 400 - 600 hz compared to the Amir's measurements. Please correct me if I am missing something here.

 

[BYRTT]

Thanks @musictracer, think its great there is diy interest for measurements but real world acoustics below 1kHz is hard to get to same anechoic precision as Amir's wonder robot can output and yours begin to look closer how a dirty quick diy measurement will look, that said in it sounds like your interrest is below 1kHz there is a quite good method to get precision and superior S/N ratio in that frequency area placing your microphone very close exactly in middle center of woofer, i haven't HS5 myself but on my flatscreen i measure diameter to center of the surround to be around 110mm and software then output below good enough numbers for your case i think, notice max distance to microphone is very short so take care not by accident dial SPL up too high so dustcap and microphone collide..

Below is pure simulation but probably a good estmation how HS5 nearfield look if sample to sample versions are close to Amir's, blue is the one and there will be a notch down low where inverted port tuning works and because microphone sits close in center of woofers dustcap it cant see baffle is not infinte therefor blue curve is x (times) modeled baffle filter for HS5 seen at right side and we end up in the black curve which should be good enough to check up how your HS5 perform from 100/200Hz area up to 1kHz. Have attached the modeled baffle loss/diffraction filter below should you try out the proposal, in practice when you have the measured nearfield curve in REW then load that txt-file as measurement and go to "All SPL" tab then "Controls" and in "Trace arithemetic" dialog one can highlight those two measurements and use the times (A*B) command there..

That said a miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone is not very expensive in most of the world and probably superior for task compared the one you use, now i can't see your country location but if one is in US zone one can get UMIK-1 at Cross Spectrum Labs that include dedicated calibration file up to 25kHz or maybe even better for dual channel loopback setups that output a precise phase too get their fair offer for a Dayton Audio analog EMM6 microphone.

 

[musictracer]

Thanks @musictracer, think its great there is diy interest for measurements but real world acoustics below 1kHz is hard to get to same anechoic precision as Amir's wonder robot can output and yours begin to look closer how a dirty quick diy measurement will look, that said in it sounds like your interrest is below 1kHz there is a quite good method to get precision and superior S/N ratio in that frequency area placing your microphone very close exactly in middle center of woofer, i haven't HS5 myself but on my flatscreen i measure diameter to center of the surround to be around 110mm and software then output below good enough numbers for your case i think, notice max distance to microphone is very short so take care not by accident dial SPL up too high so dustcap and microphone collide..

View attachment 80381

Below is pure simulation but probably a good estmation how HS5 nearfield look if sample to sample versions are close to Amir's, blue is the one and there will be a notch down low where inverted port tuning works and because microphone sits close in center of woofers dustcap it cant see baffle is not infinte therefor blue curve is x (times) modeled baffle filter for HS5 seen at right side and we end up in the black curve which should be good enough to check up how your HS5 perform from 100/200Hz area up to 1kHz. Have attached the modeled baffle loss/diffraction filter below should you try out the proposal, in practice when you have the measured nearfield curve in REW then load that txt-file as measurement and go to "All SPL" tab then "Controls" and in "Trace arithemetic" dialog one can highlight those two measurements and use the times (A*B) command there..
View attachment 80388

That said a miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone is not very expensive in most of the world and probably superior for task compared the one you use, now i can't see your country location but if one is in US zone one can get UMIK-1 at Cross Spectrum Labs that include dedicated calibration file up to 25kHz or maybe even better for dual channel loopback setups that output a precise phase too get their fair offer for a Dayton Audio analog EMM6 microphone.

Great information!Your assistance is much appreciated!
I am not sure I am getting everything you wrote right, but regardless, I hope that I will be able to take a shot with the method you proposed, soon. Just a clarification. The hs5s don't feature any woofer dustcap. Should I only take care to place the mic no further than 6mm away from woofer center? Also does spl play any role in this or the results will be considered reliable regardless the mic / speaker gain settings?

i measure diameter to center of the surround to be around 110mm

I don't get exactly what this measurement refers to, but I just measured the diameter of the woofer with a digital calliper and it reads 120 mm if that helps. Is that the magnitude you are refering to?

 

[BYRTT]

Not that it mean so much for case but where i come from the round dome in the middle of the woofer is called a dustcap its important one consentrate get microphone center as precise as possible and a distance no longer that 6,1mm, and you right SPL and S/N ratio is enormous being so close so start with very relaxed gain settings and dial in the optimal level and after the real sweep then start look at REW distortion tab that it looks quite normal there and if not dial down the gain a bit and resweep, some microphones are better to this close job as others its the ones that have a relative high SPL before their diagraph distortion set in, for gain setting REW have that practical "Check levels" button for the same reason in the "Make a measurement" dialog, method should give you anechoic response up to 995Hz and had sytem been sealed you had seen the true system 2nd order slope roll off..

 

[BYRTT]

.....I don't get exactly what this measurement refers to, but I just measured the diameter of the woofer with a digital calliper and it reads 120 mm if that helps. Is that the magnitude you are refering to?

Piston diameter is center of the rubber surround (most highest sticking out point of the rubber) at one side to center of the rubber surround the other side, try measure that with your calliper..

 

[musictracer]

the round dome in the middle of the woofer is called a dustcap

Oh, Ok! Didn't know that, thanks for clarifying !

Piston diameter is center of the rubber surround (most highest sticking out point of the rubber) at one side to center of the rubber surround the other side, try measure that with your calliper..

Ok, in this case I think your estimation was pretty close! It is hard to get an accurate measurement as the center of the rubber surround is not so clear to spot, neither is the exact diameter axis (the one that passes over the center spot of the woofer), but that said I measured 111 mm. I don't know how much this 1mm deviation might affect the data, though.

 

[BYRTT]

.....Ok, in this case I think your estimation was pretty close! It is hard to get an accurate measurement as the center of the rubber surround is not so clear to spot, neither is the exact diameter axis (the one that passes over the center spot of the woofer), but that said I measured 111 mm. I don't know how much this 1mm deviation might affect the data, though.

Thanks do the calliper measure, we close enough and that one milimeter difference only change that max useable frequency is lowered from 995,4Hz to 986,5Hz as seen below..

BTW i attach below a mirror txt-file of your Samson microphone that so you can command times into REW (A*B) to measurements using that microphone.

 

[musictracer]

BTW i attach below a mirror txt-file of your Samson microphone that so you can command times into REW (A*B) to measurements using that microphone.

Ok, thanks! I am not sure how to do this but I hope I will figure out. I may ask for your assistance as soon as I take the measurements.

 

[BYRTT]

Ok, thanks! I am not sure how to do this but I hope I will figure out. I may ask for your assistance as soon as I take the measurements.

Description doing math in REW correct one curve with another curve is in post 183 how to go to "All SPL" tab then "Controls" and in "Trace arithemetic" dialog one can highlight those two measurements and use the times (A*B) command there or one can divide or whatever, practical guide is below the red 1) curve at left side is a estimate your new nearfield measurement, now go to menu File/Import/Import frequency response and load below attached file of Amir's on-axis for HS5 seen below as 2) the grey curve, load in same way 3) the blue curve for microphone mirror (txt-file in post 188) and 4) the green curve for baffle loss (txt-file in post 183), now go to REW "All SPL" and do all the math to correct your nearfield measurement for the two errors that is the microphone mirror and the baffle loss/diffraction caused by microphone sitting so close into center of woofer it cant see the baffle is not infinite, so in "Trace arithemetic" dialog highlight curve 1) as A and curve 3) as B and command (A*B) whereafter you get a new curve 5), now in "Trace arithemetic" dialog highlight new curve 5) as A and curve 4) as B and command (A*B) whereafter you get a new curve 6 that is curve 1) times curve 3) times curve 4), should SPL of Amir's not suit your own curves SPL then offset SPL of Amir's curve via "Control" icon..

Above predicted simulation of your nearfield measurement times microphone mirror and times baffle loss/diffraction outputs below corrected curve that is anechoic useable 100-200Hz up to aroun 1kHz area..

 

[musictracer]

Description doing math in REW correct one curve with another curve is in post 183 how to go to "All SPL" tab then "Controls" and in "Trace arithemetic" dialog one can highlight those two measurements and use the times (A*B) command there or one can divide or whatever, practical guide is below the red 1) curve at left side is a estimate your new nearfield measurement, now go to menu File/Import/Import frequency response and load below attached file of Amir's on-axis for HS5 seen below as 2) the grey curve, load in same way 3) the blue curve for microphone mirror (txt-file in post 188) and 4) the green curve for baffle loss (txt-file in post 183), now go to REW "All SPL" and do all the math to correct your nearfield measurement for the two errors that is the microphone mirror and the baffle loss/diffraction caused by microphone sitting so close into center of woofer it cant see the baffle is not infinite, so in "Trace arithemetic" dialog highlight curve 1) as A and curve 3) as B and command (A*B) whereafter you get a new curve 5), now in "Trace arithemetic" dialog highlight new curve 5) as A and curve 4) as B and command (A*B) whereafter you get a new curve 6 that is curve 1) times curve 3) times curve 4), should SPL of Amir's not suit your own curves SPL then offset SPL of Amir's curve via "Control" icon..

View attachment 80790

Above predicted simulation of your nearfield measurement times microphone mirror and times baffle loss/diffraction outputs below corrected curve that is anechoic useable 100-200Hz up to aroun 1kHz area..
View attachment 80792

WOW! Thanks so much for your detailed guidance! Will come back after measurement!

 

[musictracer]

Ok, so I attempted to take the measurement today, but realized that the mic grill has a certain distance from the diaphragm, thus making it impossible to assure a distance within the 6mm between the dustcap and the capsule. At this point I think the best solution would be to purchase a measurement mic. I had looked into the Umik-1 you suggested some time ago and the problem is it is connecting through usb which has benefits of course, but reduces massively the maximum distance from the device it connects to, thus not being as versatile as an xlr one for room measurements etc.
As for the EMM6, though it gets good reviews for its performance, there are several complaints regarding the calibration file mismatch, plus it is nowhere to be purchased in my country (Greece). So any other particular recommendation (100€ max, preferably with calibration file ) would be much appreciated. Currently considering the RTA-M from dbx, but I see a few cheap Superlux (Taiwan made) get nice reviews as well. I guess the behringer ones should be avoided, right? And what about the Sonarworks one? Looks decent...

 

[BYRTT]

@musictracer guess if one run measurements without using calibration files that the Behringer or EMM6 is good enough in that their raw capsules they use is probably not so far away from fair flat and good thing using analog verse USB is that analog can be set up to dual channel so that phase can get as precise as amplitude which is a problem using USB interface, i cant come to think about a recommendation below 100€ other than for example get that dbx or Superlux or EMM-6 for 69,95€ here https://www.soundimports.eu/en/dayton-audio-emm-6.html and then use it with or without its supported calibration file and mayby down the road save up for a dedicated calibration service that can be bought at German iSEMcon, also at iSEMcon they have a more pro measurement microphone EMX-7150 143dB capable SPL for 243€ that include dedicated calibration that you could save up for down the road, myself have one of them and below you can see its dedicated calibration file compared to Amir's calibration file, both ones below is in category where using calibration file or not dont mean so much..

 

[musictracer]

@musictracer guess if one run measurements without using calibration files that the Behringer or EMM6 is good enough in that their raw capsules they use is probably not so far away from fair flat and good thing using analog verse USB is that analog can be set up to dual channel so that phase can get as precise as amplitude which is a problem using USB interface, i cant come to think about a recommendation below 100€ other than for example get that dbx or Superlux or EMM-6 for 69,95€ here https://www.soundimports.eu/en/dayton-audio-emm-6.html and then use it with or without its supported calibration file and mayby down the road save up for a dedicated calibration service that can be bought at German iSEMcon, also at iSEMcon they have a more pro measurement microphone EMX-7150 143dB capable SPL for 243€ that include dedicated calibration that you could save up for down the road, myself have one of them and below you can see its dedicated calibration file compared to Amir's calibration file, both ones below is in category where using calibration file or not dont mean so much..

View attachment 81048

I think I would like to avoid the Behringer one and opt for something a little more qualitative. One the other hand, the EMX-7150 looks perfect but quite costy for my needs. Your link for the EMM-6 is something I had looked up when you first suggested it, but there is a 2/5 star review on this page that held me back which as you can see mentions calibration file mismatch and that other owners experienced the same in the past. It is also located in an other country which restricts a warranty claim if ever needed. That said, I guess I am mostly leaning towards the Dbx. but I'll consider my choices again before final decision. By the way, both the responses you presented look great indeed, regardless if calibrated or not.

 

[BYRTT]

I think I would like to avoid the Behringer one and opt for something a little more qualitative. One the other hand, the EMX-7150 looks perfect but quite costy for my needs. Your link for the EMM-6 is something I had looked up when you first suggested it, but there is a 2/5 star review on this page that held me back which as you can see mentions calibration file mismatch and that other owners experienced the same in the past. It is also located in an other country which restricts a warranty claim if ever needed. That said, I guess I am mostly leaning towards the Dbx. but I'll consider my choices again before final decision. By the way, both the responses you presented look great indeed, regardless if calibrated or not.

That Dbx deal looks not bad, else in meantime i come think about Sonarworks offer a omni measurement microphone including multiple off axis calibration files asking for 69€, here is a link https://store.sonarworks.com/products/measurement-microphone-for-recording-studios.

 

[musictracer]

That Dbx deal looks not bad, else in meantime i come think about Sonarworks offer a omni measurement microphone including multiple off axis calibration files askink for 69€, here is a link https://store.sonarworks.com/products/measurement-microphone-for-recording-studios.

Yes, I was considering that as well, but there are a few reviews claiming it is exactly the same mic as the behringer ecm8000, only with an extra calibration file. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is a but mic of course. Also I've seen professionals using the prm1 by presonus. No cal file, yet it is considered a lot more accurate than the behringer equivalents. Ahhh, so many choices around... Can't make up my mind!

 

[BYRTT]

...Also I've seen professionals using the prm1 by presonus. No cal file, yet it is considered a lot more accurate than the behringer equivalents. Ahhh, so many choices around... Can't make up my mind!

In that pricerange think nothing wrong with the Beringer ECM8000 other than the reputation because its dirty cheap and that it lacks a dedicated or induvidual calibration file, have Behringer ECM8000 myself that i bought as my first omni mic because i needed to bundle it together their DEQ2496 unit to get full functionality in DEQ2496, later got a Dayton Audio UMM-6 then UMIK-1 and last one was the EMX-7150, UMM-6 and UMIK-1 have calibration files but they rumoured to be dirty quick fabric ones that are not special precise reported from labs and users that have sent their units to labs for calibration service, IIRC my ECM8000 raw performance looks same or very close as UMM-6 and UMIK-1 measures raw so nothing there to point fingers at, what is probably most important for these lower cost models is a dedicated/individual calibration file to correct for the speedy mass-production these low cost units is born under and therefor the one from Sonarworks doesnt look bad because for every their XREF20 microphone it has been measured by a acousticians against an ANSI certified measurement microphone, and in measurements is their speciality and bread and butter to unite headphone domain to studio monitors i think they serious when they box that model XREF20 to their customers be it proffesionals.

 

[musictracer]

In that pricerange think nothing wrong with the Beringer ECM8000 other than the reputation because its dirty cheap and that it lacks a dedicated or induvidual calibration file, have Behringer ECM8000 myself that i bought as my first omni mic because i needed to bundle it together their DEQ2496 unit to get full functionality in DEQ2496, later got a Dayton Audio UMM-6 then UMIK-1 and last one was the EMX-7150, UMM-6 and UMIK-1 have calibration files but they rumoured to be dirty quick fabric ones that are not special precise reported from labs and users that have sent their units to labs for calibration service, IIRC my ECM8000 raw performance looks same or very close as UMM-6 and UMIK-1 measures raw so nothing there to point fingers at, what is probably most important for these lower cost models is a dedicated/individual calibration file to correct for the speedy mass-production these low cost units is born under and therefor the one from Sonarworks doesnt look bad because for every their XREF20 microphone it has been measured by a acousticians against an ANSI certified measurement microphone, and in measurements is their speciality and bread and butter to unite headphone domain to studio monitors i think they serious when they box that model XREF20 to their customers be it proffesionals.

Exactly, I am not doubting Behringer as a company. The x32 consoles - and probably the new wing ones - as well as the synth replicas they currently produce are great pieces of gear especially when considering the price. But as you mentioned a dedicated cal file might be essential these days.. That said, the ECM8000 is a candidate anew after your last post. I'll consider my options and budget and see Thanks a lot!

 

[musictracer]

Ok, mission complete!.
I went for the sonarworks xref20 eventually and don't regret it at all! Even if it is indeed the same as the ecm8000 , it definitelly worths the extra 20€ for the calibration file. (You can check it in the measurements attached)


Bellow you can see a few pictures of the process as well as the results of the measurements / calculations.

I managed to get a distance of 5.7mm between the mic and the center of the dustcap. All measurements were repeated twice by the REW for better accuracy. The good news for me is that both my speakers perform identically with minimal deviations from each other in terms of freq response. Also in the 30cm distance there is no bump around the 700Hz and the response seems to decay smoothly from 950hz all the way down to 250Hz. Of course there are deviations from Amir's results , but that is to be expected in a living room measurement I guess. The deviation between 1khz-2khz makes me a bit concerned though, as when mixing I sometimes feel like I miss the 2khz, but again, that's in another room than the one the measurements took place.

Now, regarding the simulation, it is quite interesting that it indeed shows a boost around 700hz. Furthermore, there is an obvious scoop around 880hz which I also fell like missing when mixing. That said, I would consider the simulation results pretty accurate, if there wasn't this significant constant deviation of 2,5 db bellow 600hz all the way down to the low mids.

Regardless, it is worth to mention that a couple of days ago I got the chance to audition one of my hs5's side by side with an hs50m (old version of the hs5) as well as an hs7 and I admit I didn't notice any significant audible difference at the particular area of inspection, neither in the whole mid area either. Even if there was indeed some muddiness around 700hz it would be negligible and probably within the limits of acceptable production deviation error.

So that's all from me. I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on this. Once again, many thanks for your assistance and interest!

 

[BYRTT]

Ok, mission complete!.

Great man and thanks support us with pictures and mdat-files.

So that's all from me. I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on this. Once again, many thanks for your assistance and interest!

Thought is if we dont allign/offset/normalize curves at 950Hz but as below we get so close to Amir's on axis ..

1) 30 cm distance indoor measurement:
Its rather a nice sweep i think and deviation below 200Hz should speak for itself and deviation 1-2kHz probably can have two explanations or a mix of both, one explanation is your measurement is actual performance at 30cm point in space where Amir's Klippel software calculate how wavefront looks at 2 meter because that is a CTA2034 standard call for spinorama plots. second explanation is that 950Hz bump is most probably not something YAMAHA really had designed for but can be a typical cone edge/surround termination issue or port noice interference or diffraction or a mix of those three issues, so all in all will imagine Amir's curve is right and that you probably get close to same bump exactly on axis of tweeter out at a 2 meter point in space.

2) 5,7mm distance indoor measurement:
Deviation below 150Hz is caused system is ported and had it been sealed 2nd order roll off will imagine your curve had overlaid nice to Amir's down there, deviation above 800Hz is caused for diameter of woofer piston a 5,7mm nearfield measurement run out of precision steam in 900-1000Hz area plus above three explanations 1) typical cone edge/surround termination issue 2) port noice interference 3) diffraction will not look the same when microphone point in space is situated in center and within 5,7mm of woofers dustcap.

3) For fun and interest modeled how inverted port will look in grey curve below, reciep to do that was in REW "Trace arithmetic" merge low end part of Amir's curve to high end part of your 5,7mm curve at 382Hz and then minus them two each others.

Black=Amir on axis
Blue=30 cm sweep indoor
Redbrown=5,7mm nearfield indoor
Grey=modeled curve for inverted port summing

On subjective side great you had chance have hs50m and hs7 in to compare sound, for info in CAD software that 950Hz looks okay EQ able, in below animation there is a relative simple EQ suggestion you could try, note the high shelf is set to -3,8dB for the objective graph to look good but in reality think step it +/- 0,1dB up to +/- 0,5dB relative to -3,8dB is okay to reach a kind of personal preference.