JBL the only monitor with ruler-flat response? . .

[vernier]

Or might there be another?

Who wins at being closest to ruler-flat ..with specs to prove it.


'

[lordmiguel]

i thought any mfg could eq their monitors for a flat response but don't do so because its not necessarily a naturally good thing? i could be wrong...

[vernier]

They tune them with components and box design. Maybe the powered ones are eq'd! ..That'd be funny actually.

[dubrichie]

ATC? PMC?

the thing is, many manufacturers make speakers that have a damn-close-to flat frequency response, while NONE are TRULY, UTTERLY flat because, as i understand it, with current loudspeaker technology it is physically impossible.

and of course, any of those damn-close-to flat frequency responses are only within a certain bandwidth and over certain axes / angles / lobes of dispersion.

there is so much more to speaker performance than just the frequency response and these things are what differentiate how we perceive them to sound and thus all of our different tastes in loudspeakers.

some people love JBLs, some love Focals, some ADAMs, i love PMCs, etc.

all of these are pretty damn "flat" and yet have a character of their own.

go figure!

[807Recordings]

even with a +/- 3dB most rooms will have frequency abnormalities of up to 20 dB differences.

We won't even get into other factors on speakers like harmonic distortion, off axis response, impedance issues, etc.

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by 807Recordings

even with a +/- 3dB most rooms will have frequency abnormalities of up to 20 dB differences. We won't even get into other factors on speakers like harmonic distortion, off axis response, impedance issues, etc.

Exactly. I see 30 dB peak/null spans all the time. Not only that, many speakers that sound "good" are not flat. It's very common to find intentional suck-outs of 3 to 10 dB in the harshness range somewhere between 2 and 4 KHz. I see this even with some pro speakers, which I find distressing. You might expect that in consumer hi-fi speakers, but not monitors aimed at pros. Oh, so that's why [such-and-such model] sounds so silky and transparent!

--Ethan

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by vernier

They tune them with components

what about the LSR4300's?

specs are good to know, but unless you have totally mapped out the frequency response of your ears at given constants why would you assume they are flat?

its no wonder everyone loves different monitors. everyone's hearing is different. the affect on age and your exposure to loud environments (live in the city, listened to loud music for years) has a profound effect on your own frequency response.

for me, this is one area where specs are only for reference.

[vernier]

I'm talkin' peaks and valleys ..and which monitor has less.

Not control room, ears, axis, distortion, the weather, etc.

'

[Greg Curtis]

Genelec 1032As...



.

[squeegybug]

I have JBL LSR6328P here, which supposedly have 'flat' response. Doesn't sound like it to me, in a Realtraps room. Or in other rooms.

Especially when compared to my Digital Phase EP-SM1, those are the real deal. And the designer/builder did provide me response and impedance measurements of the actual pair I bought. ±1.5 dB 40 to 20K. -4 dB at 35 Hz.

These JBLs sound obviously colored with a 'hi-fi' fat upper bass, smoothed midrange, and flattened treble when heard next to the almost startling transparency and immediacy of the Digital Phase. That honesty makes me feel confident when mixing and mastering, that I can really hear what is happening to the raw material.

K+H O300 is another very nice speaker with good published specs and clean response that I had here in the same rooms. But the treble was too bright for me, even when adjusted down the maximum -2 dB, and overall they came across as somehow 'soft' or delicate with limited headroom.

Many monitor mfgrs seem to be chasing the same goal as many microphones -- brighter is more likely to sell on first impression. And it is a false and fatiguing representation of 'detail'. Like the PMC TB2+ and Dynaudio BM15 I had. PMC does not even publish measurements.

I preferred and kept the Digital Phase over all of them. The clarity of the spectrum is remarkable in my experience. I've never heard such resolution and imaging, and yet do not have to endure that screaming treble harshness. Plus I can drive them as hard as I can take or as quietly as I want with no change in quality.

So there are obviously differences in subjective coloration or lack thereof, from speakers that are supposedly measured to have similar response. Just have to hear if they fit your style I guess.

Steve

[vernier]

Looks like Genelec was striving for flat by the looks of that graph.


'

[Ethan Winer]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

±1.5 dB 40 to 20K

Speaker response graphs are often averaged to make them look better. If you average a speaker's response to third octaves, that can totally hide deviations of 10 dB or even larger. I'm not saying this is the case for any particular speaker! But some amount of averaging is pretty common.

--Ethan

[PDC]

Google knows nothing of Digital Phase EP-SM1. Where are they?

[NathanEldred]

K&H 0300's sound very flat and balanced to me. Not harsh or bright in the least to my ears. And very extended in the lows.

[squeegybug]

Originally Posted by PDC

Google knows nothing of Digital Phase EP-SM1. Where are they?

Here. They are a pretty low key company, been making high end and custom speakers in Tennessee for 22+ years.

And the website is totally not up to date, mostly only has the consumer AP series and not much on the EP stuff. They told me they are working on that.

I have no affiliation, just called them one day on a whim and talked with Daryl Powell, the designer and owner of the company. He has some product in studios here and there I believe, but not widely known in that market. Yet. Really sharp engineer, very easy to work with, give him a call if you are interested.

Steve

[MarkRB]

I guess you just need to find a pair of ears with a perfectly opposite response and you are in monitoring heaven.

[dubrichie]

i just had to reply to the Digital Phase loudspeaker fanboy.

i'm sorry, but i'm not convinced.

what IS this "Acousta-Reed" technology?

the blurb on the website comes across as bullshite.

just read the explanation offered for the use of small bass drivers. it's almost comical.

again, i'm sorry, but i'm not convinced.

come on then, tell us all about it and prove it, with numbers, ie physics.

[dubrichie]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

I guess you just need to find a pair of ears with a perfectly opposite response and you are in monitoring heaven.

touche sir!

(how do you get inflections on letters for different languages so i can spell these things properly?!)

[narcoman]

Earthwork Sigma 6.2's. 40Hz to beyond 40kHz ±2dB and the published frequency response chart shows it to be substantially flat across the entire range. I also trust Earthworks not talk talk crap....!

[squeegybug]

Originally Posted by dubrichie

i just had to reply to the Digital Phase loudspeaker fanboy.

i'm sorry, but i'm not convinced.

Not trying to convince you of anything.
'Fanboy'? lol. Maybe go listen to some speakers, buy what you like.

In any case, here is the DP patent if anyone cares to see what they are doing.

Steve

[vernier]

Seems there should be a standard by which to measure and chart.

.

[Greg Curtis]

Thought I'd speak up a bit for JBL, even though I don't own any of their speakers, or work for them in any way.

I know for a fact that JBL does not strive for or have anywhere near a "sound obviously colored with a 'hi-fi' fat upper bass, smoothed midrange, and flattened treble." At least not in a decently balanced room. I know for a fact that they are aware of competing speakers with exaggerated upper lows, and try very hard on their own designs, not to have any "English bump" in the upper lows, and they do not intentionally roll off the top end.

As far as I can tell, the millions of $$ they've spent on their much-hyped and well-known subjected listening tests (which I've both seen and studied as an engineer, and participate in as a listener) has led them to believe "flatter is better," and sells them more speakers. They truly believe this, and spend more money testing and trying to make "ruler flat" speakers than anybody else. They are somewhat obsessed with it, actually...

Greg

.

[squeegybug]

That is all fine in theory, and I agree that JBL has a long history of designing all kinds of speakers. But... have you heard the LSR6328 and worked with them to make mixes? Compared directly to other very high quality competing products? I'll stand by my experience with them, others will differ.

Originally Posted by vernier

Seems there should be a standard by which to measure and chart.

It is interesting for sure, so many nice speakers that I have owned or used that presented 'flat' frequency response and textbook off-axis behavior. Sometimes even with decent impedance curves. And still can sound so different.

Steve

[lordmiguel]

Originally Posted by squeegybug

Many monitor mfgrs seem to be chasing the same goal as many microphones -- brighter is more likely to sell on first impression.

probabaly - or perhaps they're just chasing the baby boomers (the money). in 20 years all we'll see are craft o matic beds, hearing aids and those electric riding cart commercials on TV. and everything will be super hyped hf wise

[ivankilowatt]

The day my HD-1's (Meyer) arrived, I was curious to their liniarity. I unpacked one, set in the room, and put my RTA mic in front of it.
I was Impressed. The respnse from 400Hz to 16KHz was FLAT. It had a (+8db boost) bubble between 40, and 80Hz. They're -3db @ 100Hz, I believe to keep them from sounding ''muddy''. And slightly warm (+4db) from 160Hz to 315Hz.
Overall I enjoy listening to them.
The only unfortunate thing is even bad recordings sound pretty good on them.
I do find them to give a dependable representation of how things really sonud.

[MIKEHARRIS]

HD-1's were invidually 'tuned'....you had to return the speaker if you damaged a driver !!

With the current crop of DSP monitors...ruler flat is not a problem...assuring it sounds good...thats another matter

[squeegybug]

Like John Dunlavy's speakers. All hand tweaked components for each speaker, intended to work as a system. Arguably some flat response designs, if you had the space for proper time alignment.

Yes, DSP and digital amps/crossovers are changing the measurement game. I sometimes wonder if Roy Allison didn't have the right idea all along... design the speakers to sound correct when placed in an enclosed room, instead of just measuring nicely in an anechoic lab.

Steve

[1monkey1]

is an ipod flat response?
how about a $20 boombox or a car stereo?

i mix records to be listened to in the real world.
i use bright speakers because cheaper, non-engineer audio systems are brighter and have trouble reproducing low end frequencies. again, my opinion.

if the mix or master works on my monitors, then i know i have enough low end and have sucked out enough high end to make it digestible on a fabulous ipod or other piece of consumer garbage.

curves, graphs, blah blah blah.

[vernier]

As far as I can tell, the millions of $$ they've spent on their much-hyped and well-known subjected listening tests (which I've both seen and studied as an engineer, and participate in as a listener) has led them to believe "flatter is better," and sells them more speakers. They truly believe this, and spend more money testing and trying to make "ruler flat" speakers than anybody else. They are somewhat obsessed with it, actually...

Interesting stuff.

'