I have been a long time Peavey user and recently investigated some product comparison data.
Here is a simple comparison between a very expensive product line and a Peavey line
Frequency response 80 – 17k + or – 4dB
Phase response 600-16k + or - 35 degrees
Max SPL 133 dB
Coverage 40 degrees V by 100 degrees H
List price ~ $4000.00 ?
Frequency response 89 – 18k + or – 3dB
Phase response 600 – 16k + or - 35 degrees
Max SPL 130dB
Coverage 50 degrees V by 100 degrees H
List price $819
I find this intriguing.
speaker comparisons
Re: speaker comparisons
There is a lot more to it than what a very few figures can show on paper.
Component quality.
Cabinet quality & construction.
Frequency response (not range, but response).
Tonal characteristics.
Having upgraded from a very good QW system to another manufacturers system that cost about twice as much, I can tell you that you very often get what you pay for. I'm getting just as loud with a much better tone and wider coverage, all while hauling and setting up less gear. It cost me about twice as much as my QW rig, but the performance is at least twice as good.
I'm not knocking Peavey at all. I'm just stating that there is a lot more to it than a few figures on paper can convey.
Component quality.
Cabinet quality & construction.
Frequency response (not range, but response).
Tonal characteristics.
Having upgraded from a very good QW system to another manufacturers system that cost about twice as much, I can tell you that you very often get what you pay for. I'm getting just as loud with a much better tone and wider coverage, all while hauling and setting up less gear. It cost me about twice as much as my QW rig, but the performance is at least twice as good.
I'm not knocking Peavey at all. I'm just stating that there is a lot more to it than a few figures on paper can convey.
-
- Member
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:36 am
Re: speaker comparisons
I understand the shortfalls of paper based stats and build quality certainly doesn't show up there but...
our ear hears freq response and volume differences. If two different manufacturer's speakers are covering from say 100 to 10k hz with a + or - of 1 dB at a given volume of say 100 dB at a distance of 20 feet from the speaker, a listener might not be able to detect a difference between the two. Now if one speaker was performing at that freq response, 100 to 10k hz with a + or - 4 db output variation and the other was generating a + or - 3 dB output variation, a listener might not only be able to detect a difference between the two speakers but identify the speaker that was performing at the lower level metric with the total 8 dB variation vs the other speaker which is only generating a total of 6dB variation in output and in fact is generating a 33 % more accurate sound signal.
our ear hears freq response and volume differences. If two different manufacturer's speakers are covering from say 100 to 10k hz with a + or - of 1 dB at a given volume of say 100 dB at a distance of 20 feet from the speaker, a listener might not be able to detect a difference between the two. Now if one speaker was performing at that freq response, 100 to 10k hz with a + or - 4 db output variation and the other was generating a + or - 3 dB output variation, a listener might not only be able to detect a difference between the two speakers but identify the speaker that was performing at the lower level metric with the total 8 dB variation vs the other speaker which is only generating a total of 6dB variation in output and in fact is generating a 33 % more accurate sound signal.
Re: speaker comparisons
In a lot of ways, you just answered your own question. Where those peaks and valleys are in the frequency response of each individual speaker make all the difference. Let's use your example spec speakers. If the -4db on the $4k speaker happens clear down at the 80hz but the rest of the speaker is fairly flat, that's a huge difference from a speaker (not seeing the actual response curve, understand) that has a +/- of 3db all over the place.
Re: speaker comparisons
Compare these two frequency response charts as an example. One is from the Peavey QW2 and it's not bad at all. The other is from an NXL-44a costing about twice as much. Granted some of that cost is the built in power amp, but it's where the peaks and valleys are that make a huge part of the difference. It costs more to make a speaker as flat as the NXL-44a. That's some of what you're paying for.
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2019-10-13 at 7.37.37 AM.png (17.17 KiB) Viewed 7087 times
-
- Screen Shot 2019-10-13 at 7.30.43 AM.png (29.22 KiB) Viewed 7087 times
-
- Member
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:36 am
Re: speaker comparisons
That response curve is impressive and nicely illustrates the advances made in the technology between speakers of the QW age and new products like those RCF 44 units. The availability of data like this is indicative of products that the manufactures have invested in and are prepared to subject to testing and then make the results public. Thanks for sharing.
Re: speaker comparisons
Of course the QW series is non powered so this is the "Unprocessed" full range output response. With a digital crossover or even a good 6 band parametric eq using full range you can smooth that out quite a bit. Step up to biamp/triamp setup and a program like Smaart , TEF etc you can improve from there. Loudspeakers are starting to get to be a mature technology. Saddly how a speaker measures is not always how it sounds. I've heard speakers that measure quite good not sound that way to the ear or the reverse. Measured not so good yet sounded very good. Powered speakers of today can with internal DSP do things that were unheard of at the current price point compared to what was out there when I started 32 years ago. In my crystal ball I see speakers with a measurement microphone input so you can put a measurement microphone in the room and it will compare and addjust the speaker to the input. Interesting times for sure.Josjor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:39 amCompare these two frequency response charts as an example. One is from the Peavey QW2 and it's not bad at all. The other is from an NXL-44a costing about twice as much. Granted some of that cost is the built in power amp, but it's where the peaks and valleys are that make a huge part of the difference. It costs more to make a speaker as flat as the NXL-44a. That's some of what you're paying for.
Doug
Re: speaker comparisons
Dookie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:12 amOf course the QW series is non powered so this is the "Unprocessed" full range output response. With a digital crossover or even a good 6 band parametric eq using full range you can smooth that out quite a bit. Step up to biamp/triamp setup and a program like Smaart , TEF etc you can improve from there. Loudspeakers are starting to get to be a mature technology. Saddly how a speaker measures is not always how it sounds. I've heard speakers that measure quite good not sound that way to the ear or the reverse. Measured not so good yet sounded very good. Powered speakers of today can with internal DSP do things that were unheard of at the current price point compared to what was out there when I started 32 years ago. In my crystal ball I see speakers with a measurement microphone input so you can put a measurement microphone in the room and it will compare and addjust the speaker to the input. Interesting times for sure.Josjor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:39 amCompare these two frequency response charts as an example. One is from the Peavey QW2 and it's not bad at all. The other is from an NXL-44a costing about twice as much. Granted some of that cost is the built in power amp, but it's where the peaks and valleys are that make a huge part of the difference. It costs more to make a speaker as flat as the NXL-44a. That's some of what you're paying for.
Yes, I realize it was a powered vs. non-powered comparison. But part of that reason is that Peavey doesn't really offer a high quality powered speaker. I didn't think it would be fair to compare the $2800 RCF to a PVX from Peavey. I'd compare it to an SP 2P but Peavey hasn't published a response curve for it, as far as I can tell.
Doug
Re: speaker comparisons
Yes, I realize it was a powered vs. non-powered comparison. But part of that reason is that Peavey doesn't really offer a high quality powered speaker. I didn't think it would be fair to compare the $2800 RCF to a PVX from Peavey. I'd compare it to an SP 2P but Peavey hasn't published a response curve for it, as far as I can tell. Nor for the RBN. Sorry, but that's hard to excuse for a $1300 speaker.Dookie wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:12 amOf course the QW series is non powered so this is the "Unprocessed" full range output response. With a digital crossover or even a good 6 band parametric eq using full range you can smooth that out quite a bit. Step up to biamp/triamp setup and a program like Smaart , TEF etc you can improve from there. Loudspeakers are starting to get to be a mature technology. Saddly how a speaker measures is not always how it sounds. I've heard speakers that measure quite good not sound that way to the ear or the reverse. Measured not so good yet sounded very good. Powered speakers of today can with internal DSP do things that were unheard of at the current price point compared to what was out there when I started 32 years ago. In my crystal ball I see speakers with a measurement microphone input so you can put a measurement microphone in the room and it will compare and addjust the speaker to the input. Interesting times for sure.Josjor wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:39 amCompare these two frequency response charts as an example. One is from the Peavey QW2 and it's not bad at all. The other is from an NXL-44a costing about twice as much. Granted some of that cost is the built in power amp, but it's where the peaks and valleys are that make a huge part of the difference. It costs more to make a speaker as flat as the NXL-44a. That's some of what you're paying for.
Doug