|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 107 Registered: Aug-05 | Okay after all the hoopla at Audio Asylum about these at BestBuy sold under the Insignia label for $45pr I bought a pair. A little cabinet resonance, a little tipped up bass around 80hz but otherwise a good speaker. Good imaging and clarity. I doubt you can do much better under $175pr. The BB ones are the Radiient surrounds using the KEF Uni-Q type co-axial driver with woven carbon fiber. I'm interested in hearing the ones with the tweeter on top now and figuring out how to brace the cabinet. |
|
Bronze Member Username: StefanomSilver Spring, MD United States Post Number: 74 Registered: Apr-06 | Thats a neat find. How would you say it compares with the real KEF stuff? |
|
Bronze Member Username: StefanomSilver Spring, MD United States Post Number: 75 Registered: Apr-06 | PS: Bracing a curved cabinet like that should be fun. I would probably try wood putty or glue. Giving a good thick application of wood glue on all the edges ought to strengthen the cabinet quite a bit. Add a bit of polyfill, and you should be set in terms of resonance. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 956 Registered: Dec-03 | For anyone that likes to tweak, check out the postings at DIYAudio.Com on this one. Acceptable results for little cash risk. |
|
Silver Member Username: RsxmanPost Number: 243 Registered: Jul-05 | huh didnt see BB every carrying Radiient speakers i own the helios fronts and center channel with the outboard tweeter. Im really happy with them and I have them mated with a marantz receiver. |
|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 108 Registered: Aug-05 | "huh didnt see BB every carrying Radiient speakers" That is because BB is only carrying the co-axial surround speaker of your package under the Insignia brand name for $45. |
|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 109 Registered: Aug-05 | "How would you say it compares with the real KEF stuff?" Not familiar enough with KEF to tell you how well they copied the Uni-Q. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4210 Registered: Mar-05 | Interesting! The top half of the BB page says it has 4/5" tweeters and the bottom half says it has 1" tweeters. Never heard of a 4/5" tweeter before... Quinn, have you ever heard the Polk R15s? Just wondering how these Insignia/Radiients compare to them, since they're at about the same pricepoint. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8683 Registered: May-04 | They do a far better job in most areas than the Polks which are awfully honky in the mids and thin on the bottom to my ears. Well, here you go getting me interested in cheap speakers again. I spent $90 for two pair of the NS-B2111's. The one pair appears to be a return/rebox so I suspect it has a few hours of play on it. The other pair is brand new from its appearance. Even still, neither pair is broken in to any extent so far. However, for less than $100 I would suggest anyone interested in this speaker should try a stacked pair. Drivers at the center and ports at the top and bottom. This places the drivers a bit farther apart than I would think is optimum, but for less than $100 you sacrifice the word "optimum". Then, after you've listened to the two pairs stacked together, try them as boxed dipoles. Place them back to back with each speaker enclosure firing into a different half of the room. So far, that's my preference. You'll gain a few dB's with the second set over and above the 90dB spec'd sensivity and, depending on your amp and how you make the connection, you could lower the impedance enough to pick up a bit more power output from your amplifier. As of now I'm thinking this might be a good combination with the little $30 Sonic Impact T amp (or the similar Tripath based Italian Autocostriure chip amp; https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/reviews/209464.html) running the two pairs at four Ohms to extract the "full" 15 watts per channel from the amp. For a total of $120 this should be a pretty good set up judging by what I'm hearing so far. Add in a $110 Sony SACD player and this would pass quite well for a dorm system. The speakers are not loaded with detail and they have some resonance problems that need to be addressed, but overall they're not bad. (Tim's suggestion to check the DIY forum is worth the trip.) And doubled they could make a great HT system for cheap bucks. The comment was made on the DIY forum that the speakers have a wandering impedance load. But no mention was made of the actual swing the speaker takes. Does anyone have any idea just how severe the impedance and phase angle of this speaker is? So far I've just had them connected to my McIntosh tubes and they're a bit bloated in the bottom but this passes as upright bass "woodiness" on the right recordings. Maybe it's time to shove two pairs of socks in the ports. OK, that's the next experiment. Anyone willing to part with $90, let me know what you think of stacked Insignias. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8684 Registered: May-04 | Also, the KEF UniQ's are a better speaker with more detail and less bloat. KEF's cheapest UniQ rectangular box is better built than the curved enclosure of the Insignias and the KEF is better braced to eliminate cabinet resonances. But, the KEF's are still not great speakers and they are aimed at a less critical audience than KEF used to appeal to. With the weak US dollar, the KEF's are also rather expensive when you're looking at the cheapest UniQ driver system. But, this Insignia speaker has the coincident driver technology down. New out of the boxes these speakers disappear when played on the Mac amplifiers. There are some things that I would think should worry American speaker manufacturers with this Insignia speaker. Many individual parts of the speaker would sell for $20 retail. Even the binding posts look like they belong on a more expensive speaker. With the six page spread placed in Stereophile last month advertising third world amps and speakers, there looks to be trouble brewing. |
|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 110 Registered: Aug-05 | Jan- Danny Richie of GR Reasearch did a bunch of measurements including impendence. You can find the measurement links in this post of his on Audio Asylum. http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/226518.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8689 Registered: May-04 | Thanks, but when I enter the addresses listed in the post, I get search engines which do not include the information suggested in the text. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 2995 Registered: Dec-04 | http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/messages/226518.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8690 Registered: May-04 | Sorry, what we have here is a failure to communicate. I got to the main article with no problems. But, when I try to enter the addresses listed within the article for the impedance charts and so forth I get a search engine. No charts! |
|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 111 Registered: Aug-05 | http://www.gr-research.com/images/insignia%20pair.jpg http://www.gr-research.com/images/insignia%20decay.jpg http://www.gr-research.com/images/insignia impedance.jpg |
|
Silver Member Username: QuinnPost Number: 112 Registered: Aug-05 | Trying this one again. http://www.gr-research.com/images/insignia%20impedance.jpg |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8693 Registered: May-04 | Thanks. Here is the link to the DIY forum thread which Tim mentioned. It also has some graphs, charts and squiggly lines to impress you. In this instance the impedance swing is shown at the bottom of the first frequency response chart. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81277&perpage=10&pagen umber=1 |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8694 Registered: May-04 | As I see it this still appears to be a good choice for parallel connection to the T chip amps. That will be my experiment tonight. My two pair of speakers are loosening up a bit as they play. The response graphs seem to indicate the extremes of the problems with this speaker however. There is a sense that information is missing and the tweeter should be much better. There is a "flatness" to their sound at this point which makes them rather humdrum. Speaking of "flatness", the frequency response is not that bad when taken as a + or - situation. But the effect of listening to the speakers is, so far, just a so-so reaction. There isn't a sense of "what find!" They do have a nice way with pacing and timing however. "Musical" might be a stretch for some people's taste but it fits the bill nicely in this instance I think. They are not offensive and these speakers should suit a well chosen budget system well. But, I also think, this is a case of what appears to be so may not actually be so. This speaker would probably reveal all the weaknesses of a cheap receiver and sound quite awful on a $200-500 Yamaha or Pioneer. And, the fact that it is essentially within the + or - range most manufacturers quote should be evidence of the not-so-valid nature of measurements against the real world. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8714 Registered: May-04 | Has anyone tried doubling up two pair of speakers? My preference is still to place the speaker cabinets 180 degrees apart front to back. This is merely experimentation on my part to hear what I can hear. And, my response is based on nothing more than what my ears tell me. But, with the cabinets placed side by side and positioned as dipoles, I find the sound engaging enough to make the purchase interesting if not a "find" at $90 for the two pair. As stacked pairs or as dipoles the speakers would appear to even out some of the rough high frequency response which is found in just one pair of speakers. Since I don't have the ability to test this assumption, I would be interested in the results should anyone with an itch to measure the doubled pairs post a response chart. I've used the speakers on three different amplifiers this past week and so far I have run into no problems with the parallel connection. I've run a pair of monoblock McIntosh tube amps, a McIntosh solid state integrated and the little Italian T-amp. The speakers are sufficiently poised enough to allow differences between the amps. Not large scale comments about "air", performer's breath taking, ambience or anything you would equate with far more expensive speakers. But, enough to tell me the Mac tubes still come off the best. If you are after music which presents the essence of the performance event, minus the small details of how it is performed, this speaker is not a bad choice. It does quite well when doubled and run on the T-amp. There is suffficient volume to make the system work for all but the most ardent rockers. And, with the Autocostriure making about 15 watts per channel the sound is quite good for the money spent. The soundstage has about the same width as most other speakers I've run in this room which is to say it reaches beyond the 15' side to side dimensions of the room and pushes the rear wall out of the way. Placement of performers is stable for the most part if lacking in three dimensionality of each instrument. The dipole placement helps this out a bit and creates a deeper, more "realistic" soundstage which begins a few feet behind the speaker. Stacked as doubled pairs some close mic'd instruments exist forward of the speakers' plane. I've not run these speakers with a subwoofer as I find most subs a distraction. I'm in the process of building a small sub for the HT system based on the Adire Extremis 6.8 and I'll give it a try with the Insignias if I can work out the efficiency differences. The only other amp I have on hand that I'm interested in running with the Insignias is the Sonic Impact T-amp. Since the speaker does well with the Autocostriure amplifier I see no reason to expect any difference from the SI T-amp and can see this making a great little office system with a $30 amp and $45 speakers. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 961 Registered: Dec-03 | Not sure about the improvement in tweeter response due to a dipole arrangement. What typically occurs is improvement in bass response because of the absence of baffle-step. If baffle step is already compensated for in the crossover you could end up with a bump at that frequency. Improvement in HF response could be attributed to the "dipole effect" which may even out polar dispersion and/or reduce interference from reflections. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8716 Registered: May-04 | I don't think the benefits in the frequency response are from the dipole arrangenment, Tim. The set up for the dipole position helps with the soundstaging more than frequency response. The benefits in frequency response seem more apparent when the speakers are stacked with both tweeters per side being forward firing at that point. When used as dipoles my guess would be any frequency response improvements would come as a happy side effect of the four tweeters existing in the same space and can vary somewhat with how the speakers are positioned. But, I have no way to tell what is actually happening other than what I hear. The dipole set up still doesn't raise this speaker beyond a good budget buy, but it's an interesting take on a speaker cheap enough to buy twice. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8717 Registered: May-04 | From the looks of the Xo it's a bit too inexpensive to have baffle step built in. |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 962 Registered: Dec-03 | "From the looks of the Xo it's a bit too inexpensive to have baffle step built in." No doubt, however, BSC can be achieved through a combination of box size, tuning frequency and crossover point/slope. Of course, that presumes effort in that direction. When the discussion of these began I was impressed, then I saw the response graphs. Dollar for dollar, it's still pretty darn good. Heck, it would be fun to just pick them up for the cabinets and see what could be produced. Hmmmm....I've got a few odds and ends on my shelves..... |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8719 Registered: May-04 | If you look at the frequency response with a "+" or "-" mindset, the overall response is decent. There are no large bumps or dips with a broad Q. The raggedness in the high frequencies comes across more as just a degree of blandness to the music. The bottom has good pacing though so the overall sound isn't bad, just not great. Some folks on DIY have commented on using the cabinets for other drivers. Looking at the cabinets, other than the shape, there's not much to work with. The port has lots of chuffing noises when the SPL's get going. |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3090 Registered: Dec-04 | Those ports would probably benefit from an extension to be as far away from the drivers as possible. And maybe a finish to break up the flow a bit. The spatter paint used for trunks of cars is subtle, but effective. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4252 Registered: Mar-05 | what do you guys think of the curvy shape of the cabinets? As I understand it this is supposed to reduce reflections/refraction (or some tri-syllabic word beginning with an "r") ... true, or is that just the technical/marketing excuse for a snazzier-looking cabinet shape? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 973 Registered: Dec-03 | There is some substance to the idea. Internally, it limits direct reflection of particular frequencies that can effect the rear of the cone and harmonic reinforcement of tones exiting the port. Externally, the idea is to reduce baffle diffraction of higher frequencies as they travel along the surface of the cabinet. How much of this is audible may be debatable. In the commercial speaker arena I tend to think marketing drives manufacturers to build the slender, modern looking cabinet more than physics does. In a $25 speaker, it's all for show. A better example of the theory is the Nautilus. |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4253 Registered: Mar-05 | It must be darn expensive to have curved wooden sides though, wouldn't it? I imagine with MDF they probably can use a mold of some sort... |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 974 Registered: Dec-03 | "bendy" MDF http://www.neatconcepts.com/ |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4255 Registered: Mar-05 | interesting! I wonder what special sound-dampening properties those small spaces in between the MDF strips provide... |
|
Bronze Member Username: GamerdudeOntario Canada Post Number: 73 Registered: Apr-06 | i like the over all look like the woofer it looks nice adn thetweeter is in the center am i right? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8751 Registered: May-04 | . Yes, the tweeter is coincident to the woofer. And, the woofer's cone can be used as a sort of horn to gain some additional control over dispersion from the tweeter. Look at the Insignia speakers and you'll see they've started to use this technique with the aluminum "horn" at the front of the tweeter's face. I can't see the "small spaces" having any beneficial effect. They are far too small to have any benefit to the sound. Particualrly when the cabinet is bent and the "small spaces" essentially close up to form a more or less solid surface. The "small spaces" are called "kerfs" and are a woodworker's typical way to bend material if laminations aren't employed. The kerf has to be cut to almost through the material in order to allow bending and shaping. In the past speakers have used this technique and most often found the deep kerfs weaken the material to the point where the benefits of this method of bending the cabinet material all but evens out the effort employed to achieve the result. With computer contolled cutting techniques cabinet construction such as this probably is no more expensive than a typical rectangular cabinet cut from one continuous sheet of MDF. Cost is about the same and audible benefits are about the same. Marketing benefits are what must drive the design at this price point. Parallel surfaces, whether in the speaker cabinet or the listening room itself, are destructive to good sound. This does bring up the point of building a good sounding room. If the surfaces can be made non-parallel, you will upset the resonances and even out the response in the room just as building a room with dissimilar measurements will even out the response. From what has been posted on the DIY forum, the top and bottom of the Insignia speaker (the two parallel surfaces) are the most prone to resonances. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4257 Registered: Mar-05 | Interesting...so in theory, a speaker that has no parallel surfaces at all should should better than a conventional boxed speaker, all else being similar? Could lead to some pretty Dali-esque designs! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8752 Registered: May-04 | . http://www.hifiklubi.ee/fat_margaret_project/box.html |
|
Gold Member Username: Edster922Abubala, Ababala The Occupation Post Number: 4258 Registered: Mar-05 | Hmm, would love to AB that speaker against one with a box design and identical drivers and crossover... Are there mass-produced speakers with that kind of shape? |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 976 Registered: Dec-03 | Examples of CNC routed layers in commercial applications are the TAD Model One and Seventh Veil Nonsuch. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8753 Registered: May-04 | . http://users.tpg.com.au/users/gradds/curved_loud.htm |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8755 Registered: May-04 | . From Tim's hobby site: http://www.seventh-veil.com/index.htm http://www.timn8er.com/css_elf_1.htm So many ways to skin a cat. No offense meant to feline favorites. . |
|
Silver Member Username: Timn8terSeattle, WA USA Post Number: 978 Registered: Dec-03 | Man, I forget how old some of that stuff is. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8756 Registered: May-04 | . We don't use the word "old" here, Tim. . |
|
Gold Member Username: NuckPost Number: 3200 Registered: Dec-04 | venerable. Classic. Even Retro will do. |
