[James Price[_6_]]

How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 7/15/2020 12:08 AM, James Price wrote:
How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model?

By using good components, assuring that the pieces are put together
properly by testing thoroughly after final assembly, and charging a lot
of money.


*Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback
systems?

First of all, you need to recognize that loudspeakers are always going
to have some inconsistencies. They're difficult both to measure and to
construct for identical performance. That being said, modern powered
speakers with DSP tweakability to correct for small differences between
components are adjusted to meet the manufacturer's tolerances. The
better ones do it extremely well. It's what you get when you buy
speakers that costs $5,000 a piece and up (but there's no clear break here).

For monitors that are $125/pair, you can assume that the paint matches,
you hear sound when you send them a signal, there aren't any loose
screws inside the box, and that, at least one frequency, the level match
between a pair is within a couple of dB.




--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price wrote:
How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

QC on individual drivers, QC on cabinets, then total system QC. And QC
doesn't just mean testing for rubbing voice coils; these days it will often
mean verified tests of all T-S parameters before and after breaking in the
drivers in the plant.

If you look up papers from Wolfgang Klippel, he is the guru on this sort
of thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

James Price is a tedious ****** wrote:

============================================
How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the same make and model?

** Mass produced components tend to be very similar within a given batch.

Applies to woofers and tweeters.


*Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly
identical studio monitors/playback systems?

** Seemingly identical = what exactly ?

Speakers sold as a pair should be damn near the same - but the same model sold months or years apart is another matter.


...... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:39 -0700 (PDT), James Price
wrote:

How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

If you take as an example the LS3/5A BBC monitor speaker, the B110
bass drivers were selected to have a resonance frequency within 5Hz
for a matched pair. The internal resonance of the cabinet will pull
the speakers into line from that tolerance.

d

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:39 -0700 (PDT), James Price
wrote:

How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

If you take as an example the LS3/5A BBC monitor speaker, the B110
bass drivers were selected to have a resonance frequency within 5Hz
for a matched pair. The internal resonance of the cabinet will pull
the speakers into line from that tolerance.

And the thing is that with modern manufacturing we can get much better
consistency than we could when the LS3/A was new. Now it's not unusual
to see every speaker off the production line having the Fs within 5 Hz
of the nominal value, even for cheap stuff.

Whether they stay within that value as they age is another question. That
is the real problem with picking speakers that have had different histories
and putting them together.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 16/07/2020 8:53 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:39 -0700 (PDT), James Price
wrote:

How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency
(eg. frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

If you take as an example the LS3/5A BBC monitor speaker, the B110
bass drivers were selected to have a resonance frequency within 5Hz
for a matched pair. The internal resonance of the cabinet will pull
the speakers into line from that tolerance.

d


My (self-built, complete with auto-transformer) LS3-5As are lined,
instead of with bitumous sheet, lead !

Have checked the Fs of the drivers though, over the last 30 years ...

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

geoff wrote:

============



My (self-built, complete with auto-transformer) LS3-5As are lined,
instead of with bitumous sheet, lead !


** Nice - radiation & X-ray proof.



...... Phil

[geoff]

On 17/07/2020 8:45 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
geoff wrote:

============



My (self-built, complete with auto-transformer) LS3-5As are lined,
instead of with bitumous sheet, lead !


** Nice - radiation & X-ray proof.



..... Phil


Quite inert too, in a physical sense. Sure it made zero difference to
anything though, apart from the weight.

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff wrote:

On 16/07/2020 8:53 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 21:08:39 -0700 (PDT), James Price
wrote:

How do manufacturers ensure a high degree of sonic consistency (eg.
frequency response, max peak SPL, etc.) between studio monitors of the
same make and model? *Is* there a high degree of sonic consistency
between two seemingly identical studio monitors/playback systems?

If you take as an example the LS3/5A BBC monitor speaker, the B110
bass drivers were selected to have a resonance frequency within 5Hz
for a matched pair. The internal resonance of the cabinet will pull
the speakers into line from that tolerance.

d


My (self-built, complete with auto-transformer) LS3-5As are lined,
instead of with bitumous sheet, lead !

I used the B110 and a soft-dome SEAS H881 tweeter with a pair of B139s,
each unit driven by its own amplifier in a closed cabinet design; the
four amplifiers and their power supply are built into the cabinet. The
B110's aren't called on to go down as far as their resonance frequency,
so matching between them isn't quite as critical. They are mounted in
fairly stiff enclosures damped with sandwiches of bitumen and
galavanised steel plates. The enclosures are tapered to reduce the
'organ pipe' effect and they also served as bracing members between the
front and back panels of the outer L.F. cabinets.

The main cabinet is divided into three unequal sections by two
perforated shelves which break up longitudinal air resonances and brace
the side and back panels. The panels are further damped by a sandwich
of galvanised steel plates and roofing felt. Knocking anywhere on them
wth the knuckles produces a dead 'thunk' (followed by "ouch!"). They
weigh 1 cwt (50kg) each.

The crossover is an 'active' design with cascaded state-variable
filters. It is interesting to note that the LS3/5a used twin amplifiers
and an active crossover during the design phase and was only fitted with
a passive crossover when it went into production (the BBC had to farm
out the design of that because it was so complex).


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[[email protected]]

Semi-related: I recently auditioned a used pair of
NS-10Ms, and when they said FLAT they meant it.
I mean NO coloration that I detected. Of course they
sounded bass-shy, but that has more to do with how we
hear than to do with those Yamahas.

[geoff]

On 18/07/2020 1:53 am, wrote:
Semi-related: I recently auditioned a used pair of
NS-10Ms, and when they said FLAT they meant it.
I mean NO coloration that I detected. Of course they
sounded bass-shy, but that has more to do with how we
hear than to do with those Yamahas.


No colouration in the HF ???!!!

Was that with the customary tissue-paper over the tweeters to make them
less painful, or without ?

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff:

It was my first foray with passive reference monitors,
**** on it like you do most of what I contribute here,
it's all good.

Just the NS-10s with original grills on top of their OEM stands
hooked up to a receiver and CD player.

[geoff]

On 18/07/2020 12:36 pm, wrote:
geoff:

It was my first foray with passive reference monitors,
**** on it like you do most of what I contribute here,
it's all good.

As you like.


Just the NS-10s with original grills on top of their OEM stands
hooked up to a receiver and CD player.


Just going by what everybody has known for the last 40(?) years.

I don't actually have any NS10s, but I do have a pair of NS20s. But they
are not remotely the same thing.

For context check out:

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/yamaha-ns10-story

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_NS-10

Then try to translate that to your own experience and you may learn some
more. All good.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 18/07/2020 12:48, geoff wrote:

I don't actually have any NS10s, but I do have a pair of NS20s. But they
are not remotely the same thing.

The reason I used to hear for having a pair of NS-10s to hand was that
you make the best mix you can on your normal full range monitors, check
it on cheap headphones and a car system, and then listen on the NS-10s
while looking at it and watching how the cone distorts physically on the
bass notes.

If it still sounds good and the bass driver cone doesn't distort too
badly on the NS-10, then the mix is okay for any sensible listening system.

They were the archetypal cheap and nasty speaker.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Semi-related: I recently auditioned a used pair of
NS-10Ms, and when they said FLAT they meant it.
I mean NO coloration that I detected. Of course they
sounded bass-shy, but that has more to do with how we
hear than to do with those Yamahas.

Just think how great Auratones must be then!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

Scott, geoff:

'Flat'(speakers, headphones, etc.) is not going to sound
good, simply because our hearing is anything but!

Why do you always find smiley EQ settings or the Bass
and Treble fully clockwise on consumer rigs? Because
those are the regions where most people's hearing is least
sensitive.

[John Williamson]

On 18/07/2020 18:45, wrote:
Scott, geoff:

'Flat'(speakers, headphones, etc.) is not going to sound
good, simply because our hearing is anything but!

Why do you always find smiley EQ settings or the Bass
and Treble fully clockwise on consumer rigs? Because
those are the regions where most people's hearing is least
sensitive.

"Flat" sounds as close as possible to the original sound.

The smile EQ makes a sound more pleasant. When recording, I want the
response as flat as possible, so I can hear accurately what I am getting
on the recording. It does not need to "sound good", it needs to be
*accurate*.

The two response curves have completely different uses. I record using a
flat system response, and listen for pleasure with the bass and/or
treble slightly increased, depending on the source. I use a pair of
headphones with a slight HF peak when recording individual tracks, to
expose problems such as pick noise on a guitar, but I use a pair with
heavier bass when listening to recordings I've bought or made, as that
is my personal preference.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote:


"Flat" sounds as close as possible to the original sound.

Agreed!

The smile EQ makes a sound more pleasant.

Which I why I get such argument from aforementioned individuals who 'V'-shape
their home or car EQ, or boost the B & T.


Such individuals also cannot stand - for long anyway - a calibrated TV or
projection display. "Too dark", "colors aren't punchy enough". Too soft, etc.

That's partly the TV mfgs fault: Consumer displays are shipped with all the
user and internal adjustments "torched", IE Vivid mode, so that impression
became over time the expectation. Show these people accurate, and to them
it looks "broken", (facepalm!)