Paul... That's incredible and practical. And thank you for the excellent explanation... As usual, you can explain... What a beautiful High-end speakers. To fall in love with... Greetings from the Netherlands Limburg Maastricht and above all continue with High-end... Peace and love... ✌🏾😘🌍And of course coffee beans ☕️👌🏾
A few of the features I love about my 509x are Tone Control, Loudness on or off, and Line Straight. Thank God I can have more or less sprinkles or none🍦🍩🍨😀. I don't at all miss having no options. Music, audiences, and environments are so versitile and for manufacturers to offer flexibility is fantastic.
Ooo ahhh Finally! The internals of the FR30s. Please show us the crossover in a future video or do a documentary on the R&D, CAD, to finished product. Also wow, an Octave FR30 Studio Edition🤓👏
No pleaaase! Paul should better give us decent listening samples with his new speakers ….because SOUND QUALITY is what matters…not digging deep in technical details and electronic specifications ‼️
@@bikemike1118 No thanks. Why would I want to listen to the speakers in a different room, captured with a microphone, put through UA-cam's compression and then replayed on a completely different set of speakers? That's not going to get even close to actually listening to the speakers. It's not even doing the tone of the speakers properly, let alone telling you anything about the soundstage etc. It's a charlatan's move to put something like that out and if one is fine with all those issues then it sounds like any money put into high end audio is money wasted for that person.
Hi Paul, I love watching your videos and have learned a lot from them. I have a question. Would the sound coming from the passive radiators be 180 out of phase? If not why not. If yes why is that OK?
I have the ability to eq my speakers on their back. 2 switche, one for tweeter (+2 or 3 DB), for over damped room. The other swithch is for cutting the low end sooner than it's capable of, and can be used with great results, if u have bass problems or small rooms, where u need to put them in a corner. IT should being said that, the bass driver is placed "naked" on the back of the cabinet, very close to the floor. So in fact these can be placed, right up against the front wall. The speakers i am talking about is the French Le Contoure Stabile 160 Floorstanders. Made by Lavardin, a French Amp company, to suit their amps and off course i owe the set (pre/mono). But eq on a speaker, is not all that of a bad idea ✌️❤️🇩🇰
I agree that basic bass/treble controls, even parametric ones, are of little use in the modern day. So many folks use them to try to make crappy equipment sound better. I certainly did in my younger days. We now have inexpensive DSP and 7,13 +++ band EQs that are VERY useful to match equipment to the specific acoustics of the room it's in. Nothing more, nothing less. This is exactly what the multi-band crossover discussed here is accomplishing
I'm just building my own preamp to go with a power amp I built a couple of years ago and made a point of adding bass and treble controls using circuits suggested by Douglas Self, which allow me to change the turnover frequencies, and by using relays instead of imperfectly matched and potentially noisy potentiometers. I haven't got crappy speakers, the parts for those alone cost £1300. I don't want my living room to look like a recording studio. I'm stuck with the positions of my sofa and speakers. Hence I want a bit of adjustability. Will it sound like the artist intended? Probably not, but I'll guess that nobody else's setup does either. But it might be closer than I could get otherwise.
@@JimBob_1975 room acoustics don't mean "look like a recording studio" - my membrane absobers are behind a large and beautiful acoustic picture, every unused hollow space in cabinet and sofa is filled with acoustic material, damping at all cabint doors, backside within all cabintes basotect as thick as the content there allows, baostect on the inside of all cabinet doors - foam behind the TV - some absorbers are behind plants which itself doing good for acoustics and voila at the end of the day 1300 liters invisble absorption making the room better looking than before - the point is' minimize resonances whereever possible and many small things make the big picture
people want to know the hardware, but a lot of science goes into the speaker. like shape tall slim, internal bracing, cone shape/materials, mdf type, small speaker big passive radiator. one end rounded, one square. unlike klipsch design from 1960's
Its really hard to argue against having no crossover at all and each driver having a dedicated channel. The hardest environment ever to tune were cars. With knowledge and the tuning abilities of head units it was your tuning skill that dictated the final outcome. So if your room has certain problems you have to keep trying different solutions and equipment . Props to paul with helping invent the riaa curve . Beyond that i dont see anything particularly special about this speaker on paper . Wish my brick and mortar had a pair of these id check them out. Bi amping works very well if it didnt then why does a genelec monitor sound so damn good . Everyone has different taste and wants control. There ia no one size fits all speaker that works in every room to its potential . No such thing without eq's .
My JBL HP 520 speakers have a 3-position switch on the bottom that adjusts for out in the room, next to a wall, and corner placement setting (cutely labeled 2pi, pi, pi/2). It is likely just a bass drop (0dB. -3dB, or -6dB) for the 8 inch internal subwoofers.
Nice tutorial... Closer to the rear wall will however give less lower midrange and more deep bass. More distance to the rear wall will give less deep bass and more lower midrange.
I have a pair of mini Philips speakers that I use as computer speakers in a spare room (definitely hot high end kit) run of nice old Pioneer amp, boy do they sound soooo much better up against the wall - they actually have bass that way. Anyway, all of this got me thinking, a lot of HIFi kit - as opposed to high end - was probably designed for the average lounge room with everything up against a wall. So if you have a set of speakers you like (not $$$ high end) then try them closer to the wall, they may just sound so much better.
Crap speakers need walls because they can't do bass at their own but room gain is distortion - for every proper speaker walls are a natural enemy - inform yourself about room acoustics, room modes and reflections
Dear Paul, EQ and tone controls aren't there to fix a bad component, they are there to fix bad recordings. Unless of course you only enjoy audiophile recordings. I tend to play music I like and not all of it was well recorded so I sometimes add a little EQ.
@@markstaub5250 No, I watch his videos because he is fun and knowledgeable. I tend to believe him. That said, everything he says is not gospel. He seems to feel EQ is only there to fix component deficiencies. I disagree.
@@lanmichaelmix2818 A misunderstanding. I was not referring to the EQ option on his speakers. That makes a ton of sense for room issues. I was talking about him not liking tone controls and equalizers in general. He mentions that at the beginning and talks about how they shouldn't be used to fix bad components. I was just pointing out that the general use of tone controls can be useful for making some recordings sound better.
@@gullrockgeorge9057 yes of course,But i think that he was talking about perfectionism and originalist that many people are looking for.In modern day it's rare to find a bad mix commercial especially with digital streaming systems. I actually like to control the tonality of the musics as a listener,but i just don't do it with the music i made even if it's just playback,because i want the mix to sound good even on worst speakers.
Tone controls and equalizers are supposed to be adjusted to deal with room problems. If they aren't there at all, there is no possibility of making corrections. Normally I leave all tone controls set flat and "loudness" off, but there are rare times when I use them. I will not have a system that lacks such options.
Most amps don't suffer anything from loudness and tone controls, they ever sound better. But I agree with Paul that leaving them out is the better option.
@@Harald_Reindl I don't have it. I use a passive volume control, no pre-amp, and a Accuphase customised class A poweramp. There is absolutely no need for a loudness or tone control, as far I'm aware there is none present, but I did not study the schematic extensively.
@@edmaster3147 "There is absolutely no need for a loudness" is pure bullshit - at low levels there are certain frequencies which start to disappear and dynamic loudness takes care of a linear frequency curve over the full range depending on volume - everybody pretending the opposite is either deaf or always listening at high volume - before continue appear as a fool google for "Fletcher-Munson curves"
OK. Now, I understand also. That's kind of what Acoustic Research did with their AR9 back in the very early 1980s (although not as elaborate as your system).
What Paul is saying sort of makes sense, but this is due to the boundary condition of the wall changing the spatial loading on the speaker and boosting bass output. Unfortunately the near field setting just further boosts the upper treble, and not shelves the remaining part of the response that’s not effected to compensate. With the speakers against the wall and that switch set, you end up with the classic “boom-tweet.” Too much bass, too much treble with a large trough in the middle. The usual approach to this is to tilt the bass response down to compensate for the boundary effect of the wall behind and the gain it provides. There also have also been “boundary friendly” speakers like the Allison one, DCM Time Window, etc. (I think those are the names) that are specifically designed to be put up against the wall. Edit: The argument could be made that the FR30 has to have its on-axis response tilt up to compensate for it becoming increasingly directional due to the mid and tweeter dimensions, and the further upwards tilt is doing what is correct. But since audiophiles toe everything in, it’s a moot argument, and this doesn’t even touch on how problematic the tilted response is given differing RTs and such of rooms.
@@racesla Um, its acoustics. This is standard fare in any reference dealing with sound reproduction or speaker design and its well understood. As an analogy, asking if I listened to it is like asking me to stick my hand out the window of my car to see how fast its going. There's instrumentation in the vehicle that does that much better. And for what its worth, taking a second look at the measurements shows what they have "kind of" works. Since the planar drivers have a near flat impedance curve, simple resistive attenuators will do the trick, but the "correction" disappears around 3 kHz putting a large suckout right at the worst place you can have it as that is the area occupied by the upper formant groups of speech and vocals. I can only surmise this is due to some disturbance in the crossover between the midrange and the tweeter. Again, if Paul realized that measurements (quantitative) and controlled listening (qualitative) are the same thing, the FR30s would not have this problem. He would roll up his driver's side window and have a look at the speedometer.
Haha Nice judo move! So, the switch is just to keep the sound "flat" depending on where the speaker placement is, thus no EQing in the sound world ever happens! Genius!
I have never understood that stubborness in critisizing graphic EQ. I think a lot of people on the altar of being purist, "audiophiles" etc. deprive themselves from real pleasure of listening to good sound. If someone doesn't like them it si always possible to put controls on 0 and there is no EQ-ing at all. That would give people some kind of freedom in adjusting sound to their taste . Thankfully Accuphase, Luxman or McIntosh are of the same opinion. Personally I would never buy equipment without built-in EQ ( usually in pre-amp) -- separate equalizers are bit worse in my opinion than built-in.
The biting irony is the first thing Paul did when he used the FR30s is use the mixer to EQ the mix to be neutral. The FR30s have substantial treble boost, and all the stuff mixed on them is just dull and almost lifeless. But, if you boost the mixes by the same amount as what the FR30s measurements show, the mixes sound great. It’s almost like there are researchers who know this stuff and could have predicted he would do that.🤔
@@mysock351C "The FR30s have substantial treble boost, and all the stuff mixed on them is just dull and almost lifeless." - given that only a handful of FR30s so far have been made, and that only recently, how can you assert what you did?
While this is an EQ switch... it's NOT an equalizer or a tone control, which is adding a processor into your signal chain. Even a tweeter level switch on some speakers is NOT an EQ, in my opinion. You're simply increasing or decreasing the level of a driver, but not adding tone controls to the signal path. (which i'm not at all opposed to). I love tone controls. Not everyone can have a room with neutral acoustics, and I'd prefer a bit of tone control over throwing out a great set of speakers, or worse... living with a poor tonal balance.
That's why the hifi world other then high-end has room EQ with a microphone - works great and it takes a few weeks for the human ear to not miss the dirty room modes you had all the years
As switch contacts, no matter how good, are worst case a point of failure but always at least additional contact points, why not get rid of them? You could include two plug in modules as only one is ever used at a time and once selected, usually kept that way. Plug in modules could have better contact points than switches. And fewer.
Better idea is running two binding posts on two different crossover networks but that really increases thr cost. The crossover parts on this speaker is not really high end at all if you look at the actual parts. Kinda sad for $27k. Built my gr research nx otica with subs went INSANE on parts for 12k total and they SMOKE the fr30
Wouldnt they be better with one rotary control on the back ,, a good old fashioned Tone knob ,,, like a Dancette then you could adjust it to suit every taste and position in every room ,,, perfect.
Nothing new , Arnie nudell used l pads ,the kappas have them , the rs even pretty much every infinity has them. Downside? They are in the signal path and can degrade it . Upside ? You can attenuate the speakers a bit.
"A passive radiator is just another flexible cabinet" - and it's difficult to implement well. But perhaps the FR30 is one of those which have been implemented well. Have you heard the FR30?
... That's what a passive radiator is. Like that's literally the definition of it. And for the record, passive radiators are not a scam, they are incredibly useful in designs like this
He should have gone full active with DSP -- of course that would cut into his power amp business, but it's clearly the 21st century way to go and the reason a Kii Three + BXT system at a similarly high price point is a much better deal.
I think if PS Audio had designed these speakers with bass chassis in the front (instead of sideways just to get a slimmer look) they wouldn’t have needed several gimmicky switches IMO. The box wouldn’t be as ridiculously deep either…
How many switches did he say the speaker had and how many are several? Speakers have had switches and L-Pads going back to before the first listener mutated into an audiophile. If he is able to explain what it's for, how they do it and give you a default setting then who tf cares?
To be averse to EQ or any other signal path insert, just on principle, isn't logical to me. It's all about transparency ... a signal path either has adequate transparency or not. Don't like EQ? Get a better EQ. EQ is beneficial in most every room, every system. Limit it within the minimum phase region and you're golden. A step further, with the finest DSP, one can implement FIR filters generating a time/phase aligned, impulse response corrected playback that is reference mastering quality... ie., Bob Katz.
I have found that eliminating EQ and everything else, 'less is more' was way more helpful. If EQ is used to try and improve the sound, it might be better to change the component that needs correcting. But if it makes your system sound better, well, it improves so thats awesome.
Moron the component which needs correction is the room - and even after 5000 dollars room acoustics with 1300 liters absorption bass still needs EQ in the building I live
@@edmaster3147 If eliminating a piece of gear improves performance, then the EQ isn't transparent enough... or methodology is off (ie., EQ only in the sub's signal path). Period. It's not the gear that needs the EQ, it's the room's influences. The room's transfer function, modal influences, resonances, inevitably generate huge constructive peaks of modal energy. This occurs in every single room, short of the proper studio/mastering environments. That excessive peak energy also unnecessarily increases decay times associated with each mode center frequency. With the exception of purpose built acoustic spaces, the performance of any system/room combo, will benefit from EQ. Stripping those unnecessary peaks away, presents a natural, blank canvas for which the material can be experienced. UnEQ'd room response portrays each track with a similiar characteristics, ie., excessive 70hz, yielding an overly strong punch to each component. Actually, it's somewhat different at first... your so used to the prominent freqs. However, not long after the previous excess peaks become easy to hear and quickly untollerable... Yes, EQ can be a lot... adequately transparent time/freq domain processing isn't inexpensive. Simply sharing my take after six decades. A shortcut for those budding enthusiasts. I understand many feel otherwise.
The issue I have encountered is that introducing digital in a sound chain has practial problems. A D/A conversion for measuring response and back to D/A is quite troublesome. And what about 'dynamics' of sound waves and non-lineair behaviour? By far the most trouble seems to come along with 'computing' and the effects of that. A chip is a device of many small components, yet a trade off, it causes its own issues. Theoretically I can see solutions, but practical I rather live with the limitations as they are then encountering very complex issues caused by a probable solution. I can assure you, I have tried and tested this path, left it cause it is entering a rabbit hole. The solution 'keep it simple' 'more is less' 'high quality parts' 'knowledge and experience' has been great to me. Next step is large horns with 18in custom woofers, eliminating any need for subwoofers as testing proves that the woofers start effectively at 22-23Hz..
Paul: I abhor tone controls. Also Paul: Accidentally uses mixing panel to EQ his FR30s when mixing on them, thus ruining all the mixes and making them dull and lifeless. Seems legit. 👍
You're ranting about something, with no real evidence. Go ahead, list the recordings in the Octave Records catalog that have been mixed on the FR30. Bet you can't do it.
@@TheDanEdwards I will go further than that, and list the ones that _wren't_ mixed on the FR30s: Audiophile Masters Volume IV, Bach Cello Suites, Audiophile Masters Volume I, Say Somethin’, Out of Thin Air, Audiophile Reference Music
@@markstaub5250 I actually liked the FR30 initially. But then pesky facts got in the way of that. I honestly wish it _was_ a good loudspeaker, but PS Audio really only has experience with designing bass drivers. The midrange and treble module is a completely different regime that requires numerical simulation and testing with either an automated measuring system like a Klippel, or an anechoic chamber. However, Chris' measuring capabilities are essentially the same as mine. Fine for an audio enthusiast, but completely inadequate for designing loudspeakers. But all of you get duped by Paul's charisma, and believe otherwise that we are just "haters" rather than people simply pointing out glaring contradictions.
Tone controls and EQ's RULE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great explanation Paul, very clear.
Great explanation and great engineering. impressive.
Great looking speakers. Terrific in white, also.
Paul... That's incredible and practical. And thank you for the excellent explanation... As usual, you can explain... What a beautiful High-end speakers. To fall in love with... Greetings from the Netherlands Limburg Maastricht and above all continue with High-end... Peace and love...
✌🏾😘🌍And of course coffee beans ☕️👌🏾
A few of the features I love about my 509x are Tone Control, Loudness on or off, and Line Straight. Thank God I can have more or less sprinkles or none🍦🍩🍨😀. I don't at all miss having no options. Music, audiences, and environments are so versitile and for manufacturers to offer flexibility is fantastic.
I love an EQ always had one.
Dj Paul from together fm very good tips 👌 👍
My old Marantz have a 3 position switch. Comes in handy if something seems bright or bit dull.
Great explanation!
Ooo ahhh Finally! The internals of the FR30s. Please show us the crossover in a future video or do a documentary on the R&D, CAD, to finished product. Also wow, an Octave FR30 Studio Edition🤓👏
No pleaaase! Paul should better give us decent listening samples with his new speakers ….because SOUND QUALITY is what matters…not digging deep in technical details and electronic specifications ‼️
@@bikemike1118 No thanks. Why would I want to listen to the speakers in a different room, captured with a microphone, put through UA-cam's compression and then replayed on a completely different set of speakers? That's not going to get even close to actually listening to the speakers. It's not even doing the tone of the speakers properly, let alone telling you anything about the soundstage etc. It's a charlatan's move to put something like that out and if one is fine with all those issues then it sounds like any money put into high end audio is money wasted for that person.
Hi Paul, I love watching your videos and have learned a lot from them. I have a question. Would the sound coming from the passive radiators be 180 out of phase? If not why not. If yes why is that OK?
I have the ability to eq my speakers on their back. 2 switche, one for tweeter (+2 or 3 DB), for over damped room. The other swithch is for cutting the low end sooner than it's capable of, and can be used with great results, if u have bass problems or small rooms, where u need to put them in a corner. IT should being said that, the bass driver is placed "naked" on the back of the cabinet, very close to the floor. So in fact these can be placed, right up against the front wall. The speakers i am talking about is the French Le Contoure Stabile 160 Floorstanders. Made by Lavardin, a French Amp company, to suit their amps and off course i owe the set (pre/mono).
But eq on a speaker, is not all that of a bad idea
✌️❤️🇩🇰
I agree that basic bass/treble controls, even parametric ones, are of little use in the modern day. So many folks use them to try to make crappy equipment sound better. I certainly did in my younger days. We now have inexpensive DSP and 7,13 +++ band EQs that are VERY useful to match equipment to the specific acoustics of the room it's in. Nothing more, nothing less. This is exactly what the multi-band crossover discussed here is accomplishing
Bass controls can be handy, some audio engineers go overboard with punchy bass.
@@paulstubbs7678 solve the issue where it is: room acoustics
I'm just building my own preamp to go with a power amp I built a couple of years ago and made a point of adding bass and treble controls using circuits suggested by Douglas Self, which allow me to change the turnover frequencies, and by using relays instead of imperfectly matched and potentially noisy potentiometers. I haven't got crappy speakers, the parts for those alone cost £1300. I don't want my living room to look like a recording studio. I'm stuck with the positions of my sofa and speakers. Hence I want a bit of adjustability. Will it sound like the artist intended? Probably not, but I'll guess that nobody else's setup does either. But it might be closer than I could get otherwise.
@@JimBob_1975 room acoustics don't mean "look like a recording studio" - my membrane absobers are behind a large and beautiful acoustic picture, every unused hollow space in cabinet and sofa is filled with acoustic material, damping at all cabint doors, backside within all cabintes basotect as thick as the content there allows, baostect on the inside of all cabinet doors - foam behind the TV - some absorbers are behind plants which itself doing good for acoustics and voila at the end of the day 1300 liters invisble absorption making the room better looking than before - the point is' minimize resonances whereever possible and many small things make the big picture
Great stuff 👍
My crossover is designed anechoic. Greetz from Switzerland.
Could you do a video on the design of the feet of the f30? It looks so strange, fully round at the bottom and still in some way it is not unstable
Can't help but notice that box from Shenzhen's Hingtat. Crossovers?
that is a great idea!
Would the speaker give similar stag depth if near the wall and switched appropriately or away from the wall and switched that way? Thanks.
people want to know the hardware, but a lot of science goes into the speaker. like shape tall slim, internal bracing, cone shape/materials, mdf type, small speaker big passive radiator. one end rounded, one square.
unlike klipsch design from 1960's
Its really hard to argue against having no crossover at all and each driver having a dedicated channel. The hardest environment ever to tune were cars. With knowledge and the tuning abilities of head units it was your tuning skill that dictated the final outcome. So if your room has certain problems you have to keep trying different solutions and equipment . Props to paul with helping invent the riaa curve . Beyond that i dont see anything particularly special about this speaker on paper . Wish my brick and mortar had a pair of these id check them out. Bi amping works very well if it didnt then why does a genelec monitor sound so damn good . Everyone has different taste and wants control. There ia no one size fits all speaker that works in every room to its potential . No such thing without eq's .
Was FR30 tested in an anechoic chamber?
My JBL HP 520 speakers have a 3-position switch on the bottom that adjusts for out in the room, next to a wall, and corner placement setting (cutely labeled 2pi, pi, pi/2). It is likely just a bass drop (0dB. -3dB, or -6dB) for the 8 inch internal subwoofers.
on my JBL Xpl's I eliminated the swich, which improved the sound.
How far away is far? Is near in full contact with the wall only?
Nice tutorial...
Closer to the rear wall will however give less lower midrange and more deep bass. More distance to the rear wall will give less deep bass and more lower midrange.
Ah yes, the good old days of passive speakers, I can still remember switches and knobs to turn. :D
What you use a burned out bass driver for - knock off the magnet & trim the voice coil, one passive driver for your next DIY speaker.
@@paulstubbs7678 What are you on about?
Are these the speakers designed by Mr Noodle and built from the prototypes Paul was given?
I have a pair of mini Philips speakers that I use as computer speakers in a spare room (definitely hot high end kit) run of nice old Pioneer amp, boy do they sound soooo much better up against the wall - they actually have bass that way. Anyway, all of this got me thinking, a lot of HIFi kit - as opposed to high end - was probably designed for the average lounge room with everything up against a wall.
So if you have a set of speakers you like (not $$$ high end) then try them closer to the wall, they may just sound so much better.
Crap speakers need walls because they can't do bass at their own but room gain is distortion - for every proper speaker walls are a natural enemy - inform yourself about room acoustics, room modes and reflections
3:10 I'm " BAFFELED " with the answer ...LOL
All sorts of processing going on in the studio. Tone controls on your system will not hurt anything.
Let's see a picture of the FR30 crossover please.
Dear Paul, EQ and tone controls aren't there to fix a bad component, they are there to fix bad recordings. Unless of course you only enjoy audiophile recordings. I tend to play music I like and not all of it was well recorded so I sometimes add a little EQ.
You think this guy just fell off the turnip truck? He really does live and breathe high end audio. I tend to believe him.
@@markstaub5250 No, I watch his videos because he is fun and knowledgeable. I tend to believe him. That said, everything he says is not gospel. He seems to feel EQ is only there to fix component deficiencies. I disagree.
what are you wanting to say anyway?i thought he made it clear that he use that tone control for acoustic problem?
@@lanmichaelmix2818 A misunderstanding. I was not referring to the EQ option on his speakers. That makes a ton of sense for room issues. I was talking about him not liking tone controls and equalizers in general. He mentions that at the beginning and talks about how they shouldn't be used to fix bad components. I was just pointing out that the general use of tone controls can be useful for making some recordings sound better.
@@gullrockgeorge9057 yes of course,But i think that he was talking about perfectionism and originalist that many people are looking for.In modern day it's rare to find a bad mix commercial especially with digital streaming systems.
I actually like to control the tonality of the musics as a listener,but i just don't do it with the music i made even if it's just playback,because i want the mix to sound good even on worst speakers.
Tone controls and equalizers are supposed to be adjusted to deal with room problems.
If they aren't there at all, there is no possibility of making corrections.
Normally I leave all tone controls set flat and "loudness" off, but there are rare times when I use them.
I will not have a system that lacks such options.
Most amps don't suffer anything from loudness and tone controls, they ever sound better. But I agree with Paul that leaving them out is the better option.
at low level you NEED dynamic loudness because of the way the human ear works
@@Harald_Reindl I don't have it. I use a passive volume control, no pre-amp, and a Accuphase customised class A poweramp. There is absolutely no need for a loudness or tone control, as far I'm aware there is none present, but I did not study the schematic extensively.
@@edmaster3147 "There is absolutely no need for a loudness" is pure bullshit - at low levels there are certain frequencies which start to disappear and dynamic loudness takes care of a linear frequency curve over the full range depending on volume - everybody pretending the opposite is either deaf or always listening at high volume - before continue appear as a fool google for "Fletcher-Munson curves"
@@Harald_Reindl Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I'm happy without, and I hope you are just as happy with. Cheers.
OK. Now, I understand also. That's kind of what Acoustic Research did with their AR9 back in the very early 1980s (although not as elaborate as your system).
What Paul is saying sort of makes sense, but this is due to the boundary condition of the wall changing the spatial loading on the speaker and boosting bass output. Unfortunately the near field setting just further boosts the upper treble, and not shelves the remaining part of the response that’s not effected to compensate. With the speakers against the wall and that switch set, you end up with the classic “boom-tweet.” Too much bass, too much treble with a large trough in the middle. The usual approach to this is to tilt the bass response down to compensate for the boundary effect of the wall behind and the gain it provides. There also have also been “boundary friendly” speakers like the Allison one, DCM Time Window, etc. (I think those are the names) that are specifically designed to be put up against the wall. Edit: The argument could be made that the FR30 has to have its on-axis response tilt up to compensate for it becoming increasingly directional due to the mid and tweeter dimensions, and the further upwards tilt is doing what is correct. But since audiophiles toe everything in, it’s a moot argument, and this doesn’t even touch on how problematic the tilted response is given differing RTs and such of rooms.
And you know this about the FR30s because you listened to them positioned near the wall, when?
@@racesla Um, its acoustics. This is standard fare in any reference dealing with sound reproduction or speaker design and its well understood. As an analogy, asking if I listened to it is like asking me to stick my hand out the window of my car to see how fast its going. There's instrumentation in the vehicle that does that much better. And for what its worth, taking a second look at the measurements shows what they have "kind of" works. Since the planar drivers have a near flat impedance curve, simple resistive attenuators will do the trick, but the "correction" disappears around 3 kHz putting a large suckout right at the worst place you can have it as that is the area occupied by the upper formant groups of speech and vocals. I can only surmise this is due to some disturbance in the crossover between the midrange and the tweeter. Again, if Paul realized that measurements (quantitative) and controlled listening (qualitative) are the same thing, the FR30s would not have this problem. He would roll up his driver's side window and have a look at the speedometer.
Glad to know how to use something I/most can never afford.
To acquire knowledge, one must study; but to acquire wisdom, one must observe.
Marilyn vos Savant
you can steal,think big man
@@lanmichaelmix2818 lol 😆
Haha Nice judo move! So, the switch is just to keep the sound "flat" depending on where the speaker placement is, thus no EQing in the sound world ever happens! Genius!
I have never understood that stubborness in critisizing graphic EQ. I think a lot of people on the altar of being purist, "audiophiles" etc. deprive themselves from real pleasure of listening to good sound. If someone doesn't like them it si always possible to put controls on 0 and there is no EQ-ing at all. That would give people some kind of freedom in adjusting sound to their taste . Thankfully Accuphase, Luxman or McIntosh are of the same opinion. Personally I would never buy equipment without built-in EQ ( usually in pre-amp) -- separate equalizers are bit worse in my opinion than built-in.
The biting irony is the first thing Paul did when he used the FR30s is use the mixer to EQ the mix to be neutral. The FR30s have substantial treble boost, and all the stuff mixed on them is just dull and almost lifeless. But, if you boost the mixes by the same amount as what the FR30s measurements show, the mixes sound great. It’s almost like there are researchers who know this stuff and could have predicted he would do that.🤔
And with room acoustics, EQ is pretty much mandatory unless you want crappy bass. The room is as much a part of your setup as your speakers.
The hypocrisy is that a lot of those purists probably have turntables as their main source and would never dare to consider the RIAA curve an eq
they were so ubiquitous in the 80's..love to see a resurgence of them.
@@mysock351C "The FR30s have substantial treble boost, and all the stuff mixed on them is just dull and almost lifeless." - given that only a handful of FR30s so far have been made, and that only recently, how can you assert what you did?
Well now, that does explain why some speakers sound BOOOMY when they are too close to the wall.
I guess mine can go against the wall. Time to pick a color:]
While this is an EQ switch... it's NOT an equalizer or a tone control, which is adding a processor into your signal chain. Even a tweeter level switch on some speakers is NOT an EQ, in my opinion. You're simply increasing or decreasing the level of a driver, but not adding tone controls to the signal path. (which i'm not at all opposed to). I love tone controls. Not everyone can have a room with neutral acoustics, and I'd prefer a bit of tone control over throwing out a great set of speakers, or worse... living with a poor tonal balance.
That's why the hifi world other then high-end has room EQ with a microphone - works great and it takes a few weeks for the human ear to not miss the dirty room modes you had all the years
My speakers have a back to wall and a side to wall switch.. The manual say they are bass correction filters.. EQ?
According to Bob Carver his measurement 14 inches is the minimum without being directional
As switch contacts, no matter how good, are worst case a point of failure but always at least additional contact points, why not get rid of them? You could include two plug in modules as only one is ever used at a time and once selected, usually kept that way. Plug in modules could have better contact points than switches. And fewer.
Better idea is running two binding posts on two different crossover networks but that really increases thr cost. The crossover parts on this speaker is not really high end at all if you look at the actual parts. Kinda sad for $27k. Built my gr research nx otica with subs went INSANE on parts for 12k total and they SMOKE the fr30
@@badd99 , where are you? i lust to hear that set-up. ill bring pizza?!!
@@googoo-gjoob lol MI
@@badd99 , poop..... MD. _enjoy_
EQ can be a blessing when the room acoustics or a speaker is not behaving well at certain frequencies. Period.
It’s pretty much mandatory since the room controls the bass response. The speakers just excite it via all the modes.
@@mysock351C Yes, agree. It's rather rare that a system can not benefit by careful use of EQ.
Wouldnt they be better with one rotary control on the back ,, a good old fashioned Tone knob ,,, like a Dancette then you could adjust it to suit every taste and position in every room ,,, perfect.
i think i heard those are noisier.....
From what Paul said, it's a switch that is switching between different components.... more complicated than adjusting a tweeter level, for example.
Nothing new , Arnie nudell used l pads ,the kappas have them , the rs even pretty much every infinity has them.
Downside? They are in the signal path and can degrade it .
Upside ? You can attenuate the speakers a bit.
PLEASE PLEASE
PLEASE PLEASE
Please keep closed
PRETTY
PLEASE
Well... It is time to use my home equity.
A passive radiator is just another flexible cabinet
"A passive radiator is just another flexible cabinet" - and it's difficult to implement well. But perhaps the FR30 is one of those which have been implemented well. Have you heard the FR30?
@@TheDanEdwards Agree. My comment was simply to state that flexible cabinets do sound better (although colored) than superstiff and dead cabinets
"Passive radiator". Now, come on... that's just a speaker without the motor.
... That's what a passive radiator is. Like that's literally the definition of it.
And for the record, passive radiators are not a scam, they are incredibly useful in designs like this
And the front of a speaker is called a baffle board. Are you baffled?
you don't know how society works. fancy name for basic stuff.
in perfect design, small speaker sound big.
is a lot of confusing comments what it is simple is a -6 dB roloff to a -10 db roloff
It should have used electronic crossovers.
He should have gone full active with DSP -- of course that would cut into his power amp business, but it's clearly the 21st century way to go and the reason a Kii Three + BXT system at a similarly high price point is a much better deal.
Passive EQ'ing... the worst kind.
Wait... I thought flat was bad??? Lucy...
I think if PS Audio had designed these speakers with bass chassis in the front (instead of sideways just to get a slimmer look) they wouldn’t have needed several gimmicky switches IMO. The box wouldn’t be as ridiculously deep either…
How many switches did he say the speaker had and how many are several? Speakers have had switches and L-Pads going back to before the first listener mutated into an audiophile. If he is able to explain what it's for, how they do it and give you a default setting then who tf cares?
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind well, audiophile purists care … !
So basically the speakers produce less bass against the wall and more bass away from the wall...
To be averse to EQ or any other signal path insert, just on principle, isn't logical to me.
It's all about transparency ... a signal path either has adequate transparency or not.
Don't like EQ?
Get a better EQ.
EQ is beneficial in most every room, every system. Limit it within the minimum phase region and you're golden.
A step further, with the finest DSP, one can implement FIR filters generating a time/phase aligned, impulse response corrected playback that is reference mastering quality... ie., Bob Katz.
I have found that eliminating EQ and everything else, 'less is more' was way more helpful. If EQ is used to try and improve the sound, it might be better to change the component that needs correcting. But if it makes your system sound better, well, it improves so thats awesome.
Moron the component which needs correction is the room - and even after 5000 dollars room acoustics with 1300 liters absorption bass still needs EQ in the building I live
@@edmaster3147
If eliminating a piece of gear improves performance, then the EQ isn't transparent enough... or methodology is off (ie., EQ only in the sub's signal path).
Period.
It's not the gear that needs the EQ, it's the room's influences.
The room's transfer function, modal influences, resonances, inevitably generate huge constructive peaks of modal energy.
This occurs in every single room, short of the proper studio/mastering environments.
That excessive peak energy also unnecessarily increases decay times associated with each mode center frequency.
With the exception of purpose built acoustic spaces, the performance of any system/room combo, will benefit from EQ.
Stripping those unnecessary peaks away, presents a natural, blank canvas for which the material can be experienced.
UnEQ'd room response portrays each track with a similiar characteristics, ie., excessive 70hz, yielding an overly strong punch to each component.
Actually, it's somewhat different at first... your so used to the prominent freqs.
However, not long after the previous excess peaks become easy to hear and quickly untollerable...
Yes, EQ can be a lot... adequately transparent time/freq domain processing isn't inexpensive.
Simply sharing my take after six decades. A shortcut for those budding enthusiasts.
I understand many feel otherwise.
@@FOH3663 Thank you for sharing. We all have preferences. I like a 'less is more' system. Glad you are happy with yours.
The issue I have encountered is that introducing digital in a sound chain has practial problems. A D/A conversion for measuring response and back to D/A is quite troublesome. And what about 'dynamics' of sound waves and non-lineair behaviour? By far the most trouble seems to come along with 'computing' and the effects of that. A chip is a device of many small components, yet a trade off, it causes its own issues. Theoretically I can see solutions, but practical I rather live with the limitations as they are then encountering very complex issues caused by a probable solution. I can assure you, I have tried and tested this path, left it cause it is entering a rabbit hole. The solution 'keep it simple' 'more is less' 'high quality parts' 'knowledge and experience' has been great to me. Next step is large horns with 18in custom woofers, eliminating any need for subwoofers as testing proves that the woofers start effectively at 22-23Hz..
Perfectly flat response? No speaker is perfectly flat. It's not possible.
Indeed
Paul: I abhor tone controls. Also Paul: Accidentally uses mixing panel to EQ his FR30s when mixing on them, thus ruining all the mixes and making them dull and lifeless. Seems legit. 👍
Haters gotta hate.
You're ranting about something, with no real evidence. Go ahead, list the recordings in the Octave Records catalog that have been mixed on the FR30. Bet you can't do it.
@@TheDanEdwards I will go further than that, and list the ones that _wren't_ mixed on the FR30s: Audiophile Masters Volume IV, Bach Cello Suites, Audiophile Masters Volume I, Say Somethin’, Out of Thin Air, Audiophile Reference Music
@@TheDanEdwards So, why don't you stop acting like you know something about audio, and leave the adults alone. Thank you.
@@markstaub5250 I actually liked the FR30 initially. But then pesky facts got in the way of that. I honestly wish it _was_ a good loudspeaker, but PS Audio really only has experience with designing bass drivers. The midrange and treble module is a completely different regime that requires numerical simulation and testing with either an automated measuring system like a Klippel, or an anechoic chamber. However, Chris' measuring capabilities are essentially the same as mine. Fine for an audio enthusiast, but completely inadequate for designing loudspeakers. But all of you get duped by Paul's charisma, and believe otherwise that we are just "haters" rather than people simply pointing out glaring contradictions.
this is baffling ;-)