How can two 'FRFR' cabs sound so different? FR10 vs Eon610

tysonlt

tysonlt

Power User
So I know FR10 is probably the 'right' sound, but sometimes for rehearsal I am using Eon 610s so I don't have to carry the FR10 (which isn't that heavy I know). Dialling in sounds on one is tricky when it sounds soooo different on the 610s.

When switching between them (using input 1 and 2), the 610 sounds 'clearer' at medium volume (95dB) but shrill and boomy at 100dB. Likewise the FR10 is not shrill but compared to the 610 sounds very middy and 'boxy.'

I have a sneaking suspicion that the 610 has some sort of 'loudness' compensator to make it sound good at low volume, but is both shrill and boomy at high volume.

I made some recordings on my phone but they're m4a, not sure how to post those...
 
True, however I am stumped by the difference. The Eon's curve looks close enough, but I can't find one for the FR10.

Screenshot 2019-11-04 16.01.54.png
 
I'm not really going for audiophile purity, just trying to dial in patches consistently, which is difficult when the two speakers I use create such different sounds. Surely the 610 shouldn't be that radically different? The FR10 was second hand... maybe it was mistreated by its previous owner?

EDIT: obviously more likely that the 610s are just crappy speakers!!
 
Last edited:
tysonlt said:
I'm not really going for audiophile purity, just trying to dial in patches consistently, which is difficult when the two speakers I use create such different sounds. Surely the 610 shouldn't be that radically different? The FR10 was second hand... maybe it was mistreated by its previous owner?

EDIT: obviously more likely that the 610s are just crappy speakers!!
Click to expand...

I had a Matrix FR10 and Q12a. Also had a Friedman ASC-10. I thought they sounded boxy compared to my Atomic CLR and Dynaudio BM5a monitors.
 
Thanks @rickboot, good to hear another perspective. My bandmate when I was showing the difference said he preferred the Eons. Perhaps it is a case of controlling the ice-pick highs better. I guess the Eons are going to be closer to his PA we use for gigs, so I should tune for that...
 
tysonlt said:
Thanks @rickboot, good to hear another perspective. My bandmate when I was showing the difference said he preferred the Eons. Perhaps it is a case of controlling the ice-pick highs better. I guess the Eons are going to be closer to his PA we use for gigs, so I should tune for that...
Click to expand...
That's the best approach. Some people like the boxy monitors but I suspect they are just masking the icy pick highs in their patches. :)
 
How loud are you playing them? I know my FR12 has 3 settings - Flat, Loudness Correction, and bass cut. I use the 2nd setting when I'm not cranking the volume and it does sound better than flat.
 
My phone SPL app measures 100db. I’ve used the loudness setting but wanted to test closer to stage volume.
 
The two speakers likely have different input sensitivity (which accounts for the volume difference).
But answering the question of why two FRFR speakers sound different is much like answering the question of why does the original Line6 POD not sound like the Axe FX III when I use the 'Rectifier' amp in each of the units.

Quality is important.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rex
tysonlt said:
True, however I am stumped by the difference. The Eon's curve looks close enough, but I can't find one for the FR10.

View attachment 59773
Click to expand...

This is why I hate the term FRFR.

Full Range Flat Response is such an incomplete picture of sound. If a cab almost manages to achieve FRFR, all that means is that across its bandwidth (which won't be full range because that isn't possible), running white noise through the cab gives a flat line; or running a frequency sweep gives a flat line, at the mic position (usually on-axis at 1m).

Problem No. 1 - You might manage to get a flat line from white noise where distortion harmonics are adding energy to fill in dips that you'd see on a sweep.

Problem No. 2 - You might manage to get a flat line with a sweep but there may be distortion harmonics created which don't show up on the sweep.

Problem No. 3 - These are steady state measurements and music is not steady state, ever. So what is the transient response like?

Problem No. 4 - These are on-axis measurements and only one point in the room is on-axis. So what is the polar response like?

Problem No. 5 - These measurements are usually anechoic or quasi-anechoic but you will hear a mix of a direct and reflected sound. So even on-axis, the power response (sum of all on and off-axis responses), will affect what you hear.

Problem No. 6 - These measurements are usually done at 1W (or less and then scaled to 1W). What happens when you play louder? Speakers are very non-linear devices at high power. How will the response change (not just the frequency response but the transient and polar responses too) at higher SPL?

Problem No. 7 - Speakers are inherently high distortion devices compared to most other things in audio. What is the harmonic distortion like? How does it change at higher level? What is the intermodulation distortion like? What about other issues like panel resonances, port noise, diffraction, baffle steps and so on?

So FRFR is a poor goal at best. Accuracy is what you want.

And when assessing the accuracy of a loudspeaker, it will only be as good as its weakest aspect. Flat response on-axis with small signal is pretty easy - but only a fraction of what you need for accurate sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom