Frequency Response Sensitivity - Any Charts out there for well known reference speakers?

[dawzilla]

Hello there!

Came across a "Frequency Response Sensitivity" measurement for one speaker I was interested in. Does anyone know if there's a site comparing such graphs? I know we can "hear" different microphones these days - would be nice to "see" some of the speakers manufacturers are selling compared side by side by graphs...

Maybe I am too wishful eh?

Thanks in advance if any of you clever lot have any ideas for me being able to compare speakers prior to purchase!

(I would prefer to look at graphs measured accurately before taking it to a space I have to treat)

[Hugh Robjohns]

Resolution magazine has, for years, been able to have its review speakers tested at Southampton University's anechoic chamber, so there is a reasonably consistent body of graphical information available for a fairly wide range of monitor speakers:

https://www.resolutionmag.com/reviews/monitoring/

[dawzilla]

Thanks!

VERY helpful! I do however notice that it isn't very extensive (this however isn't a criticism of you) do you know if speaker manufacturers produce charts of their own?

I am on a budget and have seen some favorable charts so far for Tannoy Gold 8's dual concentric speakers. But it seems the internet likes Adams for the price point (although I have seen recently some criticism of them and people pouring concrete in them to stop the "buzz" from the plastic front baffles!).

This however gives me something to compare to - and it seems there's some modern, cheap, contenders to these charts.

Also, I went to Southampton many moons ago - didn't realise they had a anabolic chamber!

[Hugh Robjohns]

...do you know if speaker manufacturers produce charts of their own?

Some do, very comprehensively and accurately. For example Neumann.

Most don't -- especially at the lower cost end of the market. Most high-end manufacturers will provide more extensive information to serious purchasers.

Also, I went to Southampton many moons ago - didn't realise they had a anabolic chamber!

They only make the really bad students work out in it!

[Mixedup]

Most don't -- especially at the lower cost end of the market. Most high-end manufacturers will provide more extensive information to serious purchasers.

Yeah... some publish nothing that means anything, and others publish a little that means nothing in isolation. I often imagine the conversations between designers and marketing types... Is it flattering? Good... stick it on the box. Is it an awkward truth? Erm... can we fudge it without lying? No? OK... erm, can we just keep it between you and me then?

[James Perrett]

It is also worth mentioning that Phil Ward often includes various plots in his Sound On Sound speaker reviews. And Adam do offer some fairly comprehensive charts on their website if you click on the right buttons.

[Lophophora]

Hey, I don't mean to criticize your approach or anything but just to put things into perspective: studio monitors have a deviation between 0 an 3 db from a flat line over their own frequency range, while typical home studios have peaks and valleys up to several tens of dB (even with some treatment, in the low end).

So while it certainly is an interesting thing to compare, I would recommend to try and look at the whole picture rather than focusing on the FR alone. Also, the quality of a monitor isn't measured solely on its FR flatness but other factors are essential too like distortion, low end extension (if you don't have a sub), dynamics and transient response, phase coherence.

[Martin Walker]

So while it certainly is an interesting thing to compare, I would recommend to try and look at the whole picture rather than focusing on the FR alone. Also, the quality of a monitor isn't measured solely on its FR flatness but other factors are essential too like distortion, low end extension (if you don't have a sub), dynamics and transient response, phase coherence.

A heartfelt +1 for this advice!

Good loudspeakers can be greatly compromised by poor acoustics in the room they are being used.

Martin

[James Perrett]

So while it certainly is an interesting thing to compare, I would recommend to try and look at the whole picture rather than focusing on the FR alone. Also, the quality of a monitor isn't measured solely on its FR flatness but other factors are essential too like distortion, low end extension (if you don't have a sub), dynamics and transient response, phase coherence.

Andrew Goldberg (who has worked for some very well known monitor speaker manufacturers) covered this in an SOS article a while ago.

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advi ... ifications

[Lophophora]

Indeed, that's a fantastic article that covers important things that are often overlooked! Thanks for the link.

[dawzilla]

Thanks for the additional input by all of you here!

I will add:

Yes I am aware of room treatment (however confirming this is helpful to those looking into this also)

I mentioned the dual concentric speaker earlier due to phase coherence (so thanks again for mentioning this to someone unaware).

I will peruse the links and addatum off you all. I suspected that manufacturers might add some confusing technical "dross". Hey ho. I will however plough on and try to achieve my goal of getting something "good on budget".

Might add this to the conversation - assuming phase coherence and room are O.K and within tolerable levels. Would you opt for a "flat response" or a speaker with a "target curve" (not going to mention the popular choices here - just because it adds to the input you will all likely give)

Thanks for the great input

[Lophophora]

That is a matter of personal preference. Some engineers ask for a "house curve" to their acoustic designer. I would definitely go for the flat response, but you alone can make the call here.

Regarding phase coherence, more and more manufacturers use DSP or plugins that can handle this pretty nicely.

[RichardT]

I monitor as flat as possible, though it took me a while to get used to the sound. I'm using Sonarworks to achieve this and not relying on the speakers' frequency response. As I have lots of room treatment, to get a flat spectrum at the listening position I have an upward slope in the HF in Sonarworks which is larger than any voicing curve would be.

I'm not sure this is right - but I think I've read that the voicing curves in hi-fi speakers are designed to counteract the unbalancing effect of untreated rooms.

[Hugh Robjohns]

...I think I've read that the voicing curves in hi-fi speakers are designed to counteract the unbalancing effect of untreated rooms.

To a degree -- there are other aspects to it as well.

But the tonal balance we perceive is derived from a combination of the direct sound (nominally flat) and the reflected sound within the room. In an untreated room, the reflected sound may tend to be fairly bright, while in a heavily treated room it could be very dull.

But it's more complicated still as some of the reflected sound comes from the direct sound passing over the listener and bouncing off walls and objects in the room, while a larger proportion also comes from the off-axis sound radiated from the speaker cabinets and that often has a very 'unbalanced' tonality.

That's why it's so important when choosing new speakers to listen to them in your own room, as the room's acoustics determine how much off-axis sound is brought back to the listener, affecting the perceived tonal balance dramatically. Speakers with well balanced off-axis contributions tend to work more consistently in different rooms, while those with 'lumpy' off-axis responses tend to be quite fussy....

As I have lots of room treatment, to get a flat spectrum at the listening position I have an upward slope in the HF in Sonarworks which is larger than any voicing curve would be

In a 'well treated' room there will be relatively little return from the boundaries and so only the direct sound is heard. If the speaker has a flat response it shouldn't need a rising EQ to achieve a flat response at the listening position.

Of course, if the speaker has been 'voiced' to take into account reflected HF from a more lively space the on-axis HF response may well be curtailed somewhat and hence need compensation.

But there are so many interacting factors involved in achieving a perceived 'flat' reproduction that it's impossible to pick on any one as being the most important.

[Lophophora]

There are also higher end speakers with cardioid polar patterns in the low end, which helps a lot in minimizing the room influence. Kii Three and Dutch & Dutch 8C are popular among mastering engineers these days.

[dawzilla]

I am now thinking a cardioid sub-woofer to go alongside my dual concentric speakers in a "as well treated as i possibly can" space. The Tannoy 8's appeal to my lackluster budget at the moment. I also own some Mackie HR824's MK1's bought "from a pawn shop" untested (I can repair these easily if needed - electrical engineering family + friends) - I just liked the idea of owning another set of something to compare these against - hence Adams or Tannoys and the comments about the build quality of the Adams I have had from some owners put me off a bit.... But I am still undecided. £200 a speaker is my budget, with probably £400 for a sub later.

I will also be investing in a decent reference mic for REW and of course trying to "treat reflections" "bass build up" etc... Biggest problem being I see is that I am:

Renting a home, given what I get (being on benefits for disability) and working with materials that are "off the shelf" RE acoustic treatments.

I don't want an anabolic chamber

Thanks ever so much folk for the information here - means a lot!