Yeh, when I set a budget to assemble my system, one of the crucial components to be factored into that budget, was a beer fridge. I purchased a gloss black beer fridge and as it is about the same size as my subs, it can be easily mistaken for one.
My beer fridge is manufactured by Miele. It is fitted with an inverter motor/compressor, so is virtually inaudible. But I have mastered the art of opening cans during intensive percussive passages. It adds to the soundstage and prevents my wife from knowing how many cans I’ve opened.
Remember folks, to hear music samples with the most accurate dynamics on a TH-cam stream, disable 'Stable Volume' in the video settings. :) As for the blind sound comparisons, during the first demonstration, Sample B was slightly more rolled off in the upper midrange, which made the speaker sound more relaxed and balanced. During the second demonstration, Sample A was a little more detailed, but I don't think the differences were as stark as they were in the first sound demo. I would probably never buy an upgrade kit for any speaker I own, but would like someday to buy one of Danny's smaller monitor kits.
thank you for this. i didn't know and did it with stable volume on the first time. the differences are much more apparent to me on the second pass with the stable volume off. either that or placebo effect... 🤣 either way, i'm now convinced that parts matter
Good tip on the TH-cam settings. It did make a difference. At least through TH-cam, my aging ears, and my rather cheap preamp’s headphone jack, the difference is very very slight. Slight is still an improvement though. I’m going to rewatch again once my preamp is upgraded in several weeks. Right now I’m working on my biggest problem which is room acoustics.
@@kenthobbs9527 With a video playing, click on the gear icon for settings, and select ‘Additional Settings’, and you should see an option for ‘Stable Sound.’
It's quite obvious which one is which in the first speaker set example, because example B sounds WAY better than example A in every case, with B being significantly clearer and more detailed, no matter which track/song was playing... With the second speaker set example though, the differences between A and B clips are EXTREMELY subtle, almost not even noticeable. The ONLY way I could actually hear ANY differences between the A/B clips on the second speaker set was if I used my very best sound quality headphones AND I listened to the clips extremely carefully AND in a VERY quiet room... Only then could I finally tell that example A, (the upgraded ones), was ever so slightly more "airy" and detailed, with less "veil" to the song at hand, (or "at ear" in this case), than example B (the stock version) was. I honestly don't think that MOST people, (i.e. NON-audiophiles), would even notice anything different about an exact copy of the original crossover in a speaker, but just using higher quality parts in it, without any other changes, that's why Danny usually tries to improve the overall frequency response, time arrival, decay, phase response, etc. irregularities in most of his speaker upgrades also, like he must have done with the first speaker set in this video, therefore making it significantly clearer and more "present" than the original stock design was. You can definitely hear an improvement in overall sound quality of a speaker that has been (re-)designed properly from the ground (box) up, including but definitely not limited to just improving the parts quality of the crossover. Everything helps to some degree, some things more than others, and it all can then add up to a quite significant improvement in overall sound quality of the speaker.
I had a look at the frequency responses that Danny posted after I listened, and I'm really not surprised that the Wharfedales sounded different - he bumped the tweeter level by a couple dB. Of course they sounded more detailed - they're brighter.
I've noticed over the years that there's a significant difference in the way different individuals hear (especially when it comes to the mids and highs). Then you add individual taste to that and you open up a can of worms. That's why some folks have such strong disagreement on these things. Some simply can't hear very well and don't even know it. Others can hear very well, but haven't trained their brain with enough experience to understand what they're hearing
I currently own Clayton Shaw's (formerly Spatial Audio) X4 Ultra open baffles for orchestral music, as they run almost full range). ADDITIONALLY HAVE up and running harbeth 30.2 Anniversary speakers; AR3A "improved" loudspeakers (utilizing the massive Sansui BA5000 when they really want to rock out and have friends running through the house enjoying what they do best❤ Finally, I have in a second system the shinjitsu audio's first TOL, and consider myself lucky that not only was this opinion/not necessarily factual) Morris's "loss leader," and he adjusted the price even lower by selling it as open box! Okay, with all that, the final arbiter for me: piggybacking of Mstr Jackson's statement above: using one's ear in their own environment (if you disagree with me that the room is the most important component then this is not for you. For some, this will require no attention at all, which represents a fraction of another miniscule fraction ("audiophiles"). I am a big proponent of seeking out first a direct to consumer product (DTC). THIS EXCLUDES the appropriate dealerships, who can highly recommend, demonstrate AND deliver and install whatever it is you purchase. Just so you get to know where I'm coming from re DTC v. the established norm of $$ x $$ x $$, which often includes the distributor along with the retailer! The best deal for many many people of my age (59), was one of my all-time favorite head cases, Richard Vandersteen (I proudly paid what I was charged) then flagship 5A loudspeakers, which I cheerfully ran for over a decade and no desire for upgrades. If your purse allows you to do it, then you would do fine working with said dealer who operates as I've described above. My current top three list would be to look at the top of the line from Richard Vandersteen, MBL 101mk2 and their top-of-the-line, with a key interest in Rockport technologies. (I was working with a client, and while he ended up with the MLB 101 Mark II, I had a phenomenal experience with Hi-Fi buys in Atlanta, and purchased the top of the line center channel from Rockport technologies. I'm in Sarasota florida, this client in the Daytona Beach area, and not only was the product delivered, they drove down here Post shipping to make sure it arrived safely AND installed in a manner that is the definition of first class. A very wonderful national dealership is in my backyard, Suncoast Audio. I've known Mike since he opened at least a decade ago. It is truly a unique experience. Personally, I now only buy used equipment to flip later, or that was built for repair and the lifetime that exceeds my own. Otherwise it is DTC for me. My main loudspeakers are both DTC products. As is my PBN preamplifier and phonostage, two turntables (George Merrill 😊 acoustic research replica and another courtesy of the brain of the late Thomas Scheu). All of this "stuff" and my direct contact as a customer of Danny (I've purchased to power cords and speaker cables from him). Based upon the care, respect, service and of course delivering fantastic results, As I have shared with him. If anyone finds him insincere and not led by his inner humanity, go ahead and pull the trigger on me! Ron, I applaud all of your dedication and zeel not only with what you do but how you go about it. That's what makes you unique and also I simply cannot thank you enough for turning me on to Clayton Shaw! I paid around $10,000, and when I demo them to audio files they begin guessing prices above $40,000... Error revelation: it is I, the headcase, NOT 😊 the genius Richard Vandersteen, whose extreme 7's is clearly on anyone's short list of endgame oudspeakers¡!¡!
@@roybatty- Yeah, but that trained brain, and experience isn't in the room in this particular test. Right? Also hard to judge based on three unfamiliar tracks. When I make changes in my setup I'll run through dozen of familiar tracks before deciding whether the change was positive, negative, or neutral. No offense to Ron, I know he means well, but he didn't do the modded speaker justice doing it through TH-cam Take the binding post buzz he said he heard as an example. It was completely inaudible, but in room I'm sure it was there
Thanks for sharing. Unless one is dong a blind test like this one ( A/B ing) back to back I think it would be very hard to tell the difference. Our brain has a very short memory when it comes to this audio difference. If one was to introduce a PEQ into the chain I think it could also make a big difference and you could tweet all day long to your liking :)
@@JoelHernandez-tz3vk I can honestly say that 'good enough' was all I required for most of my life, but here's the problem, Once you hear a Hifi setup that sounds truly amazing or magical in a way that you never knew was possible. You hear new things in music you've been listening to for decades AND NOW you can't un-hear it. So you want to try to reproduce that magic in your own listening room. Down the rabbit hole you go and there's no turning back. Atleast that's how it's been for me
I’m a 32 yo male musician with good hearing, tested recently, and i couldn’t hear a significant difference. Any difference I thought there might have been was so subtle that I can’t be sure it’s real. Because I wanted to prefer one over the other, I actually chose the stock speaker both times. But that’s only because I was expecting there to be a difference. I’m not sure there was one
@@perlman7376 Yeah, for "perfect" audio, all you need is low enough noise and distortion, enough power, a linear response from 20Hz to 20kHz. Probably 15kHz would be fine for anyone over 30. Our hearing is not as good as we think it is. An analogy might be megapixels in a digital photo. 10MP for a 6X4 is more than enough to exceed the resolution of human eyes. Room acoustics obviously very important too.
As a matter of interest, did you have 'Stable volume'' switched off in the video settings when listening, as advised by one of the commenters? I'm never sure whether listening via youtube is the best measure of any of these upgrades but I did hear differences in clarity and response in the first samples, though I'm old and hearing is way past its best.
my hearing isn't good. I couldn't hear a bit of difference. @homecinemaking397 compare some cornwalls to SVS Pinnacle...and there was a huge difference
I dunno. Im a 58 year-old male who has been a part-time semi pro vocalist (bass-baritone) before but not what I do for a living. And I was just listening via TH-cam on an iPad with headphones, which will be ridiculed by many I am sure. And I wanted to hear no difference, but I preferred the upgrade in both cases-not something that seemed to me “blatant, night & day”-I just happened to prefer the upgraded speakers. I have no skin whatsoever in this game. Im considering building DIY speakers for the first time so just checking stuff out. A little nostalgic for me too-first speakers I ever owned were Wharfedale Diamonds in the mid 1980s-these stock ones sound way better than those did in the 1980s…
I picked out the upgraded speakers in both cases. I appreciate what GR is doing for those dedicated to having the best, regardless of cost. Thing is, the cost for those miniscule improvements outway the benefits, imo. Both of those speakers are wonderful sounding in stock form. That said, I've designed and built more than a few loudspeakers that would have benefitted from a better crossover design; not so much by utilizing super high dollar parts, just a better crossover design in general.
The problem with these types of listening tests, are, quite a few of the differences, especially when only parts quality has been upgraded with the same values, is that a lot of the audible differences will be in things that don't translate to YT clips. Better parts lead to improvements in things like: soundstage, imaging, the ambience of the acoustic space where the recording was made, and other attributes that have to do with spatial cues. The differences will even get greater when the crossover has been redesigned, too.
oh, they translate. I know the algoritm will play as low as 8 hz, ive seen the test equipment register. Pro sound Sub manufacturer showed me. they dont mess around
Completely disagree with you. YT is not compressed at all. I could perceive a noticeable difference from both samples in my IPad Pro , wearing my JBL in-ear headphones.
I never comment on TH-cam, but in this case, I made an exception. I was involved with technical development of audio systems over a 32 year period with Oxford Speaker Company (back in the day), Ford, GM, Chrysler, Sony and Harman (JBL). I worked with the "golden ears" of each of these companies. I worked in development of sound profiles for various applications. I was professionally trained in listening. And I have a pair of Danny's XLS Encore speakers and I have say they are truly outstanding. I had no difficulty hearing the difference between the comparative speakers in your test. In the first round, the extended low frequency response and improved headroom were notable in the upgraded speaker. In the second round the upgrade yielded a more subtle difference, but the extended headroom was quite notable. This being said, I believe the danger is concluding that all of GR Research's upgrades actually offer a benefit. For example, the binding posts of the first speaker would likely limit the performance and simply upgrading to ANY better attachment method would yield a similar improvement. But, you don't need tube connectors. As for the second example, improved components almost certainly improve sonic performance for any speaker, but do you need Sonicaps and mega-dollar inductors to get an improvement? The answer is no. The insidious nature of Danny's business model is very troublesome. Yes, his speakers are great and upgrading binding posts, installing heavier internal wire and upgrading components can potentially improve any speaker, but to say that you need tube connectors, mega-dollar components and ultra speaker cables is just an assertion that has no merit in the real world. Blind listening tests in multiple scenarios and environments over the years have basically demonstrated that no one can tell the difference between expensive speaker cables and 12 gauge lamp cord - no one - and I've seen the data and experiments many times. So the bottom line is that Danny offers some great speaker packages, and some of his component upgrades make sense. However, steer away from the mega cost components, speaker cables and tube connectors. There are more cost effective options that yield the same improved performance.
Yes. I liked him, until I saw him ridicule those who know and tell the truth about speaker cables. Utter nonsense and makes everything he says suspect.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I seem to be wrong quite often...forgive me), but I recall that someone at MacIntosh (perhaps, the originator) said that speaker cables don't matter that much. I haven't seen a video, yet, where Danny implies that cabling matters a lot...other than these tubular copper terminations which augment the "signal path".
The British company Quad did the following: They connected their amp between the speaker cables from the power amp that 'sounded the best' and the speakers. They leveled them out and did the A to B comparisons to prove their amp did nothing to the sound and thus was completely neutral. No-one could hear if the Quad was the amp to the speakers or the amp feeding the Quad. Later on an audio show they showed their extreme new orange speaker cables. These sounded incredible according to the listeners. Later they told what it was: the cheap cabling used for electric gardening tools. The technician of my audio specialist tried a 100m roll of RG58 cabling, feeding it with a 1MHz square wave and comparing the input to the output. No difference to be seen. So, if your expensive interlink sounds better, it's because it's not linear.
He's surely not all about speaker cables and tube connectors. I don't remember hearing anything about speaker cables on any vid not specifically about speaker cables. Though many say good cables are a thing. He seems to be offering precision components that don't interfere with the signal quality. Is that controversial?
I have a cheap pair of bluetooth jbl headphones from walmart & I can hear more detail, & decay but it is subtle Had to replay it a couple times & then i guessed right before skipping to the end to see results. But I think the best thing about these upgrades is to know you have quality parts, & that brightness & fatigue can be tamed, i bet i could hear a big difference playing my kinda music
I have Focal Clears - and they are CLEAR - heard zero differences. If anything, I would need to hear the same clip repeated, a, b, a, b, at least 5 or 6 times in a row before I would be able to pick out a consistent difference. Not to mention, the one thing out of all his upgrades that are the most ridiculous are those tube connectors.
There are differences. And in room and in real life there is more. Whether you like it on your gear in your room? It depends....on your own ears, besides budget of course.
I just found your channel and this post. I'm 60 years old and have been a hard core listener, musician, recoding engineer and amateur song writer most my life. So this is a clean perspective. These are really had as we are all listening through whatever our end system is. Mine is a set of Focal 2 ways and a class D amp. Wharfedales to me sounded better stock on all songs. Mostly upper mid range and top end. I like them either way (have heard them in person) but liked this example stock. The Behringers to me sounded better modded. Almost exactly the same perception for me. Better upper mids and highs. Acoustic drums sounded more realistic, woody to me. Fun experiments. Source, amps and room have way more influence in the end.
Try this - Do the same experiment - Compare A to B - But unknowingly use the same speaker for both. Guaranty you will get a bunch of people stating A or B sounded better, simply because they think they are listening to two different speakers (in this case a crossover upgrade), so one must sound better than the other. And if you need to be trained to hear the differences, is a $600 upgrade really worth it? Parts of course matter, but how much is the difference worth it to the typical customer? If you upgrade $1500 speakers with a $600 upgrade kit, and it sounds better, ask yourself if a $600 upgrade in woofers or tweeters would have been even better? When you buy speakers, you have a budget and try to buy the best sound for the money. You might listen to ten pairs of speakers, all sound different, and you choose what you like best. There really is no best speaker, everyone has different tastes in what they consider a nice sound, and that's why there are hundreds of speaker companies. I have a pair of Stereophile Class B rated speakers for my main setup, and they sound awesome, but I actually enjoy listening to a pair of vintage 70"s speakers more. They don't technically sound as as good, but there is just something about the sound that is captivating to me.
Just speaking for what I've experienced in the only speaker upgrade I've ever done, and that was on a pair of low grade RCA three way floor speakers year 1999. The drivers made the biggest difference. Starting earlier this year, I incrementally upgraded them starting with the crossovers first. Nothing fancy, (keeping in mind they're cheap speakers, and this was a hobby project) I ordered Dayton crossovers to replace the tiny crossovers that were the size of a bottle cork. The new crossovers had a mixture of air and iron core inductors. That change was minimal. Only real differences, were that it seemed to open them up a little. But when I did the bass drivers next, the overall sound was hugely better. Next came the mid range, and again a nice noticeable difference. Then I replaced the piezo tweeters with some Morel Soft Dome tweeters, and that was it, the horns on the 60's music with horns from Sinatra, Henry Mancini and such, was incredible. For what I experienced, the drivers made the most difference, but the original drivers were of really low grade. Also, RCA(Radio-Shack) didn't match the ohms rating of each driver, which seemed odd. Bass was 8 ohms, midrange was 7, and tweeter was 6. All the new drivers were 8 ohms with sensitivity of 90db. So, all in all, the bass driver made the biggest difference in sound. I also added internal bracing. They actually sound rather respectable now, with a nice tight bass on two channel listening. Of course the previous bar was set pretty low.
Same here. I've got a big pair of Sansui speakers made in 1971 in my game room that I've recapped. At high volumes they sound really good playing classic rock and my friends always request them on poker night. Technically they measure pretty bad compared to my modern ELAC towers.. and because of comb filtering the Sansui's sound kinda dull at lower volumes, but above 85db and up to about 100db they come to life!! The way they reproduce the sound of a drum kit and screaming electric guitar is really amazing. Yet, if I mentioned the model number I'd get negative comments telling me they're nothing but kabuki crap lol.
Fantastic video. I have wondered why Danny doesn’t do this on his own videos where he shreds the build quality of other speaker makers (which I don’t necessarily care for). I was actually considering ordering his kit for my DW6s. after this video, I could definitely hear the difference. But I actually preferred the stock Wharfdales.
Personally if you like your ZUs ,I'd never change their ';personality. I installed the Clarity cap upgrade on my ODW and guess what? Just not worth it.
I can correctly pick upgraded A/B sound clips parts, but differences is not huge, main sound character is quite same. These 2 speakers are 200$ speakers and I think upgrading crossover parts with sonic caps and aircore inductor etc cost more than these speaker costs. I wish you could choose speakers worth to crossover upgrade.
Well I have to say the upgrades are better, but not as dramatic as you suggest! I’m listen through Audeze headphones and they all sounded better than what you typically get on TH-cam 😂 I was able to discern the difference, but again i thought it was subtle. 🤷🏽
I have purchased and installed three of GR Research upgrade kits. The first was on the Klipsch RP600 M. I was so impressed, I decided to upgrade my Magnepan 3.7i speakers. Again the improvement was impressive. The most recent upgrade was on the Klipsch Cornwall 3. I have just finished it and I am very pleased with the results. I have the ability to swap the new crossover with the stock crossover easily so comparison between the two is easy.
That's awesome. That Magnepan upgrade process looked pretty difficult. I couldn't do it, so hats off to ya for that one. Which of the 3 kits you bought was the best upgrade? I'd love to upgrade my speakers with a GR Research kit. Unfortunately, they don't make one for my speakers(Revel F 206) yet. Maybe one day. I know they have cheap parts in them. My problem is, I'm useless when it comes to projects like that. I'd likely ruin my speakers. It'd be nice though.
I’ve designed several speakers and upgrades, even sold a few. I could not have gotten to where I am without Danny. I’ve learned so much from him. His approach is a common sense one, where real world measurements and trial and error trump the fancy computer simulations that most designers get hung up on. I’ve also emailed GR with questions and always gotten a response either from Danny or Hobbes. This is remarkable when you consider I’ve never once ordered anything from them. Danny is straightforward, a great teacher, and an honest businessman, not to mention an amazing designer. Thanks for getting him started on TH-cam, Ron.
I have been designing speakers too and built a few pairs. Try this for the EXPERIENCE: Get a big box and put a 10" woofer in it with about a 5.6 mh inductor on it. For expensive woofers, may go a smaller inductor. And mount a 5" OPEN FR driver on top of the box. For mounting, start off with using lots of Blue Tack or plasticine, and slope it back a lot so it's not so much in your face (experiment). Piggy back connect the open FR driver to the woofer binding post at the back of the box. If it's an expensive FR driver (and 8 ohm) just connect it directly. Or (if it's a cheap $9 driver like mine) you can build a filter for the open FR driver. Open FR drivers have tweeter treble performance cos of it being open and treble comes from both sides of the cone (for more treble level and more extended as well)! If you make a filter, use electrolytic caps for FR drivers (compare with ceramic cap and you will know what a I'm on about). 😅 Ceramics sound too brittle and scratchy on FR! Electrolytic caps sound WAY more silky and transparent than Ceramics! 😅 This is only with FR, though. 😅 For tweeters...not so much! 😅 My filter is a 100 mf cap in series with a 3 ohm resistor and they are both in parallel with a 2 mf E cap. (That 2 mf cap is particularly important to be an E cap). This is where it's OPTIONAL (and not for the faint hearted). Get cheap FR drivers and cutting off the whizzer cone (if it has one) and cut off the dome in the center (if it has one). Or just get drivers with the hard stationary phase plug. If it's a paper or plastic dome in the center, it's air trapped inside an enclosed cavity (causing resonance inside, making it sound d sippy). 😅 Cut the dome off at 1/8" above the base of the dome. It's a tiny whizzer that is not out-of-phase so much, like the regular whizzers are. Put soft felt inside voice coil tube to stop dust (not for the faint hearted). Now, the innovation really starts: With a stiff hobby blade, slit the cone (right through) like 1/8" out from the center edge and make sure the edges DON'T TOUCH, just use the blade to have a small gap like a half a mm, to stop vibrations. Make the slits 1 cm long with half cm gaps (that are not cut). Do it right around, spacing it accordingly. Now repeat the process about 1 cm out. 😅 For the best treble in the world! Better than any tweeter I heard! I took my speakers to the hifi shop and they went crazy over them! 🎉 How it sounds: Sometimes when I am in my room I hear someone talk and it sounds like it's a person in the room, so much that I jumped out of my skin a few times, but there's nobody else in the room! 😅 Once when I was in my room I heard a low flying jet make a low pass over our house, and I looked out the window for a few seconds and couldn't see anything! Then I realised it was in my speakers (that were just a meter away). 😅 I made a pair of coaxials + woofer speakers for my friend, and once he had a problem with his phone, fumbling with it for a few seconds, trying to stop it from beeping, But he then realised it was in his speakers, they were over 10 feet away from him! 😅 So you can imagine how the music sounds. If you are watching a band on your tablet, you are at the gig, dancing with the band (in your mind). If there is any REVERB in a recording, you are going to hear it! Where the med range meets the treble! Wow! 😅
@@TheDumbTake-xb6rr funny you should say that, so Danny sitting there with his charts and measurments, spectural decay, ect. dont mean anything??! to me that is data backing it up........
He knows how to design a crossover filter, but the hucking of hyper-expensive parts and nonsense tweaks (power cables, anyone?) makes me firmly disagree with the honest businessman part.
On the first clip, the sibilance on A was very obvious and objectionable. On B it was much less objectionable but still a bit over the top. So I was certain A was the unmodified sound. Yes, I heard the difference in parts. The second clip wasn't as obvious to me. I was just listening with the internal speaker on my MAC.
I agree. I also think the difference was quite clear - even for my 53 year old ears - with youtube shenigans. Still, full quality sound files would fit this theme very well.
That's a real risk with upgraded speakers! They get much more revealing and will let us hear problems upstream. Like when the system isn't up to snuff or the song is badly recorded/mastered. Stock speakers with cheap parts usually hide those problems. That's why it's always a good idea to take care of the rest of the system first before upgrading or changing the speakers!
@@geminijinxies7258 Cheap speakers/part only hide problems elsewhere if they have significant problems. Speakers that are more detailed, as opposed to more "laid back", will reveal problems elsewhere. But detailed does not mean cheap. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I got both right. Imaging is better and clarity too. For someone used to listening critically not too difficult. And - I just used the built in speakers on my SAMSUNG TABLET S7 - no high-resolution headphones needed. Hats off to Danny of GR Research. Excellent recording quality - well done! All the best, Rob in Switzerland
The question is, is making everything flat even more than most studio monitors are going to make your speakers trully better to listen to? Not talking about sonicaps or connectors or crossovers that could improve sound quality? Its kind of confusing!
I just listened again. The first example was very subtle to my ears, the sample B did seem a bit smoother. Not dull just smoother, I don't know how else to say it. The second example was more obvious. Sample A definitely sounded better. A noticeable difference even on my little cheap reference speakers. Much more refined upper end. More dynamics in tone overall. More clearly defined separation of instruments. Better parts in the crossover definitely sounded better to me. Thanks for the video.
I definitely heard subtle differences. But I got the first one right and the second one wrong. It seemed that the upgrades had different effects on each speaker. After listening to the first, I was listening for the same effects on the second and that turned out to not be the case. So my problem would be, both speakers sounded good regardless. It would be a matter of preference if you preferred the stock or the upgrade. To me it seems, you are not always guaranteed to like the upgrade better. So while it may measure better, which is what Danny seems to care about, will you really find it to your tastes? Finally, would I do an upgrade to a speaker? I think in my case, if I liked the way my speaker sounded stock, I would not choose an upgrade. It might sound different with an upgrade but would I like that different sound? If I had a speaker that I thought could use some help or had a bit of an off sound, I might want to try it. But probably not before looking at where the extra money could be spent on a next level speaker. In which case why not go to the man himself and try one of his personally designed speakers to get the full GR sound. That would make more sense to me than throwing parts at another speaker on top of what you already spent.
Very interesting Ron! I have to say that I liked the upgrade version better both times. Better clarity, imaging, and soundstage. Just a little bit more of that you are there presence. Actually, presence is a good descriptor. I’ve never purchased a thing from Danny although I do enjoy his videos. Maybe one of these days….. Keep up the great work
I don't know exactly what Danny did to these but I've seen his videos regarding upgrading speakers- he usually builds a better crossover, I believe. The first test A sounded a bit bright, actually, for Wharfedales and B sounded more polished with added depth, although not as bright. With the second demo, I could definitely hear the clarity difference in the B part of that test. That being said, I don't really think it added that much to the Wharfedales to want to spend the money to upgrade them. But, if you like to play with your toys by taking them apart then power to you.
I got hold of a Pair of EPI 100v speakers. Interesting thing I read about them... is that the engineer that created them... used a heavier gauge wire winding, to automatically filter out the Highs, from the woofer coil itself. His Theory, was that it would eliminate a crossover component... and that may lead to a cleaner Musical Signal... Not sure if its been proven... But let me tell you... these speakers are on a whole other level, compared to anything Ive ever heard / owned before. The speakers "Vanish".. and the music becomes Holographically 3D... without you being able to tell where the sounds are being projected from. The bass from the very powerful, massive magnet 8" woofers... is Punchy / Fast, Musically Accurate (not artificial sounding, like Ported speakers) and a Lot Deeper level of Bass... that you would Never expect from such a small sized speaker cabinet. The Inverted Tweeters, are extremely detailed and revealing... without being Fatiguing at all. The 3D Soundstage, is one of the Widest, that Ive ever experienced, hands Down. You can get stand almost anywhere in the room, and get a perfect "sweet-spot" image, without any notable Drop-Off in decibels. Doesnt matter if they are on the floor, on stands, one laying on its side... and the other being vertical... or even if one is partially under a desk. The thing is insanely amazing. (ohh, and they seem to sound best, when placed on the floor, and within like a foot distance, from a wall) There is only a Single Capacitor for he Tweeters. Nothing else required. Easily swapped out, if / as needed. Not that long ago, I was at the local high end stereo shop... and they were demo'ing a $3500 pair of modern, tall, tower speakers. When the salesman smiled, asking me what I thought about them.. I actually couldnt contain myself from laughter. My used, 70s era, $100 re-foamed EPI's, utterly DESTROYED them in every single Metric possible. It wasnt even in the same Universe of Comparison. If anyone picks a pair up... Make sure the woofers are Originals (the unique small dustcap, tends to give it away), Replace the single Cap, and make sure that they have the Upgraded Tweeter Model. The elder inverted tweeters.. have a Fiber-Board mount... Where as the newer model of their inverted tweeters, has a plastic mount. A former EPI / Genesis Physics employee, still hand makes replacement parts... including an even more improved version of the famous inverted tweeter.. at his Humanspeakers website. The only downside to the EPIs, are that they need a good deal of Power to drive them... and they wont play as loud as more efficient + ported speakers. Its more than loud enough for me... Plenty enough to easily get you kicked out of your apartment. That said... the superior magnet + coil strength... and the sealed box... creates a Superior level of Cone Control. This equates to FAR less Micro-Distortions... and as such, you will hear NEW things in your old music... that you have never heard before. For example... I was listening to a song, that I believe was from Phill Collins... and at one point in this particular song, you usually cant make out what lyrics he is singing... because his vocals, and the music... end up Muddying and Distorting them.. to the point where they Merge / Flatten into each other. With the EPI's.. for the very first time... I was able to easily make out every single Word he was singing in that spot... without any strain nor guessing. The vocals, and the musical instruments in the background... all remained perfectly Separated and Detailed. I was totally blown away... and started re-listening to every single CD, that I own. Now... Can they compete with +$20k speakers? I have no clue. Ive never heard speakers that cost anywhere near that price tag. Also, there are other EPI models, that are more than likely to beat my own model... such as the EPI 1000's which have 4 pairs of drivers each (8 drivers per speaker). Ive never got to hear such speakers, so who knows how good they are, in person. All I can do, is share my experience with the speaker model that I own. Also note, that since the are a Sealed speaker, you need to crank them to medium / high volume levels to get the best sounding bass potentials. At lower volume levels.. they still sound good... but its on a whole other level of Dynamics... at mid to high levels. You can fix low volume bass, by using an EQ, and bumping up the bass levels. This will excite the Woofers far earlier, even with less overall volume levels. This is also an issue with speakers that have passive radiators, too. Where as Ported speakers, have the Opposite problem... When you push them too loud / hard... you tend to get very Artificial + Droning sounding bass... and often even get Port Chuff noises, too. There is no perfect Solution. However, if you want the best, most naturally musical sounding bass... always go for a good quality Sealed speaker. Next best, would be Passive Radiators. Im not sure about Open Baffles... because Ive never had the opportunity to hear them (other than a mini prototype, from some cheap parts I had laying around. Not valid enough for any serious conclusions... but those mini satellites sounded quite decent for what they were. Anyway... Here is the Deal about Speaker Upgrades: If the drivers are of poor quality... they will always create micro-distortions. At best, better crossovers can help reduce Some of them.. by increasing or decreasing the workload, for each specific Driver. However... in the end... there is only so much you can do. The magnet strength, coil strength, and build quality (rigidity)... are far more critical to performance, than anything else. Its like comparing a generic cars motor... against a Race Car's motor. They are two completely different beasts. While you can do a few tweaks to improve the generic engine... its NEVER going to be capable of what a dedicated Race Car engine is capable of. And if you go even further... the Race car itself... has superior brakes, suspension, shifting speed, gearing, cooling, downforce, aerodynamics, better tires, a stiffer frame, and much more. You just cant easily transform a standard car... to come even close to a racecar. And if you do... you are replacing all of the critical parts, with Race Quality parts... which is the equivalent, to swapping all of your speakers Drivers, with FAR superior drivers.
The designer of your EPI 100’s was Winslow Burhoe and to this day I believe he is one of the most brilliant speaker designers ever! Although I now own and am very happy with my Gershman Acoustics Grand Avante Gardes, (which also are a sealed design and a lot more expensive) I still own multiple speakers of great value that Winslow designed that I will not part with!!
I’ve narrowed my preferred audio channels down to a bare minimum. New Record Day is one of my select few. Ron is a straight shooter and a valuable resource. Keep up the good work.
At this moment I haven been having trouble with my hearing, my equipment is simple, cheap Alesis Elevate 5 Monitors, ELAC 10" Sub, crossed over at 80-ish Hz with a Bheringer SuperX Pro, fed by a Topping 10B Balanced DAC.... so not high-end at all... but balanced signal path all around. The difference was noticiable in both comparisons and I liked the "upgraded" version better.... It was a surprise because I don't really like Dany, but gotta admit that it's true! This inspires me to buy a full Kit from GRC and try it!!! Thanks for the video... I was SURPRISED that even with a ringing left ear I could hear the difference.
For me, the difference is huge, but some guys posted here that they weren’t able to hear it. - I’ve first listened on the internal speakers of a Mac Mini (pretty bad speakers) and was able to hear more clarity and tonal balance in both upgraded speakers, but wanted to find out if the difference changed with other equipment above $10K - and as expected the difference got even more audible (for me). This means, people like me should probably spend the extra money, and people who cant hear any difference shouldn’t. It’s as easy as that.
I feel the same way about tubes. Some people just cannot hear any effects from tubes. I grew up listening to tube amps and preamps. I really notice when they are not in the system. And solid state frankly gets on my nerves because I keep missing that something extra... Tube preamp into a solid state amp sounds fine to me. Usually. Still can't beat a good all-powerful tube amp.
I work in music with my ears full-time and I can firmly say I couldn't pick out a meaningful difference with the Behringers. Load of nonsense to me - and I can hear 0.5dB EQ moves, so it's not as though my ears aren't trained. The Wharfedales had a pretty firmly different HF response so of course they sounded different - you're hearing the change in EQ.
Got curious, when i had the feeling after listening to the first A B:s that the a was stock, (didnt listen to the behringers) so i recorded the clips to my DAW and had at it a little bit. Now better or worse is subjective. I did feel that B sounded a little better, hence why i got curious about what the difference was, trying to do a little null test and realised that the second B clip was pahseinverted. So running them untoched all bass was gone, pushing the phase button bass came back. So fiddling alittle more with it, and 3 points with a fabfilter EQ and i liked the stock speaker better. Clip B sounded compressed to me as well, and the wavefile shows that as well on the second song. Less open somehow, its insanely hard trying to explain sound... Did in the end prefer the stockspeaker, and guess i would rather put a good eq infront of them.
My honest opinión the upgraded speakers sounded like adding U shape equlization quite cler diference great for critical listening too harsh to play music for hours, i'll rather keep them musical
Oh thank goodness! I got both right! What I think I heard in the pre upgraded speakers was the smearing that Danny always talks about. I always used to wonder what it would sound like, before and after. The post upgraded speakers had much better separation between instruments, much better sound stage. Amazing. Thanks to Danny for all he does, although he would sell a lot more if he included before and after sound clips. Thanks to you Ron for doing this.
Well, that's probably because the filter values didn't change on the Behringer, so... yeah. The Wharfedales are pretty different in their axial response with the new crossover - quite a bit brighter.
I could hear the difference between the wharfdale original/update. The biggest difference I could detect was in the midrange and high treble region, seemed like just a linear adjustment (as opposed to some reduction of non-linear behavior. While this could also be the case, it was not the reason I detected a difference between them.) I could not hear the difference between the behringer A/B. I suspect if there weren't some obvious lobing issue or distortion at crossover region in the original speaker, a DSP would have done the same job, only faster and cheaper.
Wharfedale: Very easy test as in Danny Richie's video. But I can not hear the buzz of the stock binding post :( Behringer: Easy test but the differences are not so great than with Wharfedales (I like more the W sound, more life, enjoy, credible..). Vocal theme, the differences have been reduced but I can still distinguish them, but I have to concentrate a little more. You know, with my modded KEF Q100 coaxials, near field. Hybrid integrated Magnat MA 900 modded too, Direct ON (without JJ 12AT7 tubes). In fact, ALL the components of both of my systems have been modified by me.
😂 funny thing .... they all sound like a Galaxie AO3 over here 😅. Maybe I should plug into my stereo down stairs. But then they will probably sound like my Bose 301seris IIs with Advent fried eggs 😮. Yeah they sound like my Bose 301seris IIs with Advent fried eggs. With further listening the modified Warfdales did have some sibilance that the factory crossover masked out with the female vocals. I think that a third direct sample of the sorce should have been been provided.
I could clearly here the differences on both speakers and I also guessed which were the upgraded ones. How? Because the upgrades sounded much smoother and more balanced. I frequently listen to my music very loudly and a smoother response will enable me to listen longer without ear fatigue. On a poorly designed set of speakers, your ears will be fatigued in minutes on high volume and will sound very harsh. Thanks for this comparison and for showing just how important it is to design the crossovers the right way with good quality parts!
I did not listen with headphones, but with my Canton Karat 920 2-way bookshelf speakers and was correct in both instances. I've build a pair of Jean Hiraga's full range speakers with Fostex FE103e units and might try those too, because they are more revealing.
I skipped the upgrade step and got the X static speaker kit with upgrade crossover parts. They are an open baffle sealed woofer hybrid that are a fun build and best sound quality for cost. Even taking cost factors out of consideration these speakers sound spectacular.
@@rothgartheviking858 Not going to happen, this was done some time back ( when I was going to buy the kit ) Ron did his thing as a reviewer but was never uploaded to TH-cam. Apparently disappointed with them and sent them back. Apparently changed his views when he heard them at Danny's place. It all stopped there ! To be fair This is what i was told and read, I could be wrong. The thing is I noted as many others to have the X statiks reviewed, didn't happen.
I always learn something from Danny’s videos. Very informative stuff. My situation is that my hearing is not what it use to be so really great speakers are kind of a waste for me now. Years ago when my hearing was good, I would be all in for a pair of his speakers. So, I get what he is doing but I guess I wouldn’t really benefit from it. Danny is alright.
Good job Ron! I easily heard the difference through my headphones. Obviously I didn't know the order of which one was A or B but I chose B instantly on the Wharfs. I chose A on the second speakers. After hearing the results of which was which, I give Danny a thumbs up!
I like these kinds of videos 🙂The upgrade of Wharfedale Diamond made a major difference which was easy to instantly hear. The upper range was much more transparent and engaging. Sound sound stage was bigger and imaging was much better. Question, did you move the microphone between takes? In the clips of the upgraded version (of the Wharfedale Diamond) the vocals were slightly more to the left compared to the factory clips.
@@Newrecordday2013 I heard the same thing... changes in instrument and vocal placement. There's nothing about a revoicing or tube connectors which should relocate the mix. That would be BAD! I then also have to assume you were recording a stereo pair. Ron, did you have two pair of each model? This recording should have been done in mono. One mic. One speaker. You've introduced variables... even if only potential. By revoicing, Danny may have changed the horizontal frequency response which would necessitate adjusting toe-in for each version per your own L.O.T.S. suggestions. If all you did was setup for the modified version and then slap down the unmodified version without these changes, you will of course get differences. But if you did adjust toe-in for the modified vs. unmodified, then you introduced variables. I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I definitely heard them. I just don't understand why you'd keep variables in play when trying to make a point. One mic. One speaker. No other changes. Otherwise, we're also hearing your own L.O.T.S. setup preference applied to adjusted horizontal freq. responses. I appreciate the effort and work on the video, but in my opinion, the obvious effects of stereo differences diminish the impact of your results.
@@johncreech6012 one of the biggest changes to a speaker with upgraded crossovers is soundstage. How can this be judged with a single speaker? Maybe the moved voices is correct, and this was being hidden due to "smearing" of the signal with original crossovers?
@@johncreech6012 judging these upgrades in mono reminds me of Amir passing final judgement on speakers by listening in mono 🤦All the good work he does on ASR is instantly undone by not listening in stereo, in a more typical listening environment.
@@RacingAnt regarding "biggest changes to a speaker with upgraded crossovers is soundstage"... what acoustic principle are you using to justify this statement? I'm not saying you're wrong. But crossovers determine frequency response and phasing. Assuming you change the response equally in both speakers of a stereo pair, how/why are you suggesting a voice moves across the soundstage with a frequency response change? Just saying it doesn't make it true. I agree a soundstage can appear wider but we're talking about moving an instrument from a medium pan-right to the middle in some of the Wharfedale recording.
I watched a video where the guy changed nothing but the interconnects and did recordings like you did. The difference was clearly night and day. While responses are roughly the same, the difference on a you tube video through a cheap set of headphones was very clear. The sound stage opened up. Now, limited by my headphones and the audio driver in my phone I decided to ditch a 3 dollar cable and buy an overpriced Audioquest cable. Yeah, same thing. Never heard Transyberian orchestra sound like I was there. So i decided I would test out my own crossovers and upgrade a very cheap and regrettable speaker I bought 30 years ago. Jensen JHS 1533's. I was 15, forgive me. I sealed the box, sprayed the inside of the box with rhino Liner, braced the box, put stuffing in the box, replaced the speaker cups, put much better wire in the box and built a real xover network for the box. 300 bucks total and I will never let them go now. It is absolutely astounding what high performance parts you can put into speakers with quality parts. As far as the video goes. I could hear the vibration on the stock Wharfedales, I could also hear the tinny sound the stock Behringers had. Its not snake oil. Its just good parts!
exactly ..the cost of the upgrades aren't worth the difference for most people; the differences are subtle enough that you need an AB comparison and extended listening to really tell the difference .. if you don't have access to an "adequate" AB comparison, it will be close enough that you're not going to miss the upgrade...also, the biggest elephant in the room is that you have to be reasonably young to have a hearing bandwidth that will allow you to hear the full effect of any changes... anybody (who's kids are young adults) are old enough to most likely be unable to hear 15 KHz. I am a senior and only hear to 13 KHz. I listened to the audio from this video on a very resolving system and did not hear enough difference to warrant the cost differential! For me there is absolutely no difference in sonic enjoyment between a $500 DAC and a $10,000 one..
That's up to people to decide - he posts the costs. I think people get attached to their gear, and this is a way to show some love for something they love.
My ears did not fail me. I preferred the upgrade both times. The difference was very audible AND without headphones. Hat is off to you Ron, outstanding work!
Danny doesn't usually play sound clips for this reason. There is some measurable difference. But when the audio is compressed for TH-cam and then played back through inferior speakers, the differences are minimized. Danny recently posted clips on his TH-cam channel which you can download and play through your stereo system. Any differences should be more evident there. The stock kits at GR Research have parts on par, and often better, than speakers triple the cost. His premier kits offer even better performance; but the return on investment is less. Danny is a drag car ethusiast and mechanic. Those guys might spend hundreds of dollars on new heads because they weight 12 lbs less than the stock part. If you're not a perfomance junkie, sticking with the standard kit gets you a great speaker and great bang for your buck. This is very different than when Danny upgardes a poorly designed speaker. Often, he does transformative work that would blow the owner's socks of, even if the same quality parts were used in the rebuild. Then, on top of the engineering improvements, parts are upgraded to to the same quality parts as a standard kit. The first is like a better recipe. The second is like better ingredients. Better ingredients won't improve a bad dish. But once you have a better recipe, you can still make the most of it by using the best ingredients you can afford.
No not a moron it's the same reason why some engineers insist that cables all sound the same. Everyone's hearing ability and experience at listening differs, don't worry although I would have expected most people to hear the upgraded ones sounded brighter with more details
Great video. I started this video thinking this was going to be a I hate Danny Ritchie video and everything he stands for. I was very pleasantly surprised that this was an honest video examining Danny's upgrades to a stock speaker. Parts matter, tube connectors matter and wires matter. Some of the upgrades may be very noticeable and others may be very subtle. I believe Danny and GR Research are the real deal. He strives to make things better for his customers and is a pretty honest guy. I recently sent them an e-mail asking about upgrades to my Martin Logan 60 XTI speakers, which I really like. They promptly replied and told me they had nothing for me and my ML speakers. They did NOT just try to sell me something. Certainly I could substitute some higher quality parts, but currently it is under study. This meant a lot to me. Keep up the good honest work here on this page. Bob
I came to the same conclusion with B for the first sample, and A for the second sample. The sound stage seemed to be more open, and have more space around it. I'd like to know the names of the tracks, there were a couple I'd like to dip into more.
I listened through a set of xls encores (no headphones) it is really easy to hear the difference, the difference I heard on all of them was the same “ the silent background” and a bit sharper
I have excellent hearing I could hear the difference, in both examples. The first example was much easier to hear than the second. I imagine the examples are more pronounced in real life and would substantiate the cost of the upgrades and over time pay for itself. I can also see where some folks may rather upgrade the entire speaker. It would be awesome to hear his speakers in, an A, and B test against some top-selling speakers within the price range would be a great start. Then getting his speakers out of 3-4 showrooms across the country would be the next best thing. He could start locally in Texas with Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Lots of audiophiles around ATX hint hint.
Can someone tell me what the music was ie title and CD or Vinyl. I loved the music but only listened to it on a phone. I do, however, have (to my mind) a lovely 7.1 system with Denon 4311 and JBL speakers (ND310ii x 2 and the rest including centre, all Jbl 10inch speakers. These are xomplimented with 2 x JBL 12inch subwoofers. At my age, 75, I dont get to hear it all anymore and derive most of my pleasure with the sound moving around me. Upgrading for me is somewhat irrelevant. I would however very much like to have those music details if possible. Thanks guys n gals, tony
He really should do sound clips, he did one not too long ago on a speaker, can't remember what it was but even over TH-cam it was noticeable. The tone was better. These weird harsh things that many speakers do and so did these, that was gone after the crossover redesign. I'm sure not every project turns out like that but still, it seems like it would drive sales, I thought it was a big improvement
This is honestly the first time the differences in your recordings were subtle to the point of... yup, there is a difference but I really couldn't articulate with a couple of listens which one I preferred. This is all subjective of course. I listened to the following before listening to the reveal section of the video. I listened to them first with buds pro 2 and Arias through my iPad M1. Not hearing anything but a tiny difference, I switched to my CPU rig which is hd6xx, d1se dac, and 789 THX amp. Still barely picking up anything I tried the Arias on the CPU rig and again nothing. Normally I can pick out clear differences in your gear/room demos. Sorry, not picking up what you are throwing down in this one Ron.
I bought the Dynaudio SPecial 40 upgrade kit. It was easy for a novice to implement and the improvement in transparency was remarkable. His products are for real. Also bought the Magnepan 1.7i kit but was unable to install it as that speaker is hard to work on.
Maybe I'm just a cheap date, but I honestly liked the stock Wharfedale's better. Sounded brighter to my ears. The Behringers were a toss up. Thought I heard more transients on the upgraded one, but that could be my imagination.
Actually the opposite is true. The Wharfedales were much clearer and less muddy than the stick version. Your system is not correct for discerning differences here.
Given the audio goes through a room, a mic, youtube, headphones and subjective views, all we can really say from the test is whether we heard a difference. I thought that a midrange dip in stock Wharfedale was much improved by the kit, but it could be that it corrected for the janky frequency response of my headphones. You might hear that as less treble (brightness) if you're hearing that relative to the midrange, like if you had plenty of midrange already in the stock version, so maybe different perspectives of the same thing.
I think the best was the Magnepan upgrade. I really appreciated the upgraded dynamics. I change the speaker sets out now and then just to appreciate the differences. Right now the Cornwall’s are in. I just seem to enjoy the music more when they are in the main listening room. That and they take up a lot of room in the storage closet. 🤷♂️
Couldn't agree more with Danny's service, Ron. I got into a minor quibble with a guy on a Discord forum once about Danny and his service where the guy said "I could take this guy more seriously if he actually listened to the speakers that come in for his service." That right there told me he has no idea what Danny's service is at all or what the goal of his service aims to accomplish. Any competent speaker designer from Andrew Jones to Sean at Zu Audio to John Devore, aims to make a speaker that has a relatively well behaved, fairly flat frequency response and a fairly well behaved impedance curve. Sure, designers need to meet a price point in doing so most good designers (arguably) do the best they can with what they have to work with to create a speaker that measures respectably and that again means a fairly flat frequency response and impedance curve. But we have seen time and time again that the measured performance of many loudspeakers is less than ideal. So, when Danny brings in a speaker his aim is to take measurements and correct the faults in the speaker's measured performance, to bring it more into a relatively well behaved, flat frequency response, better impedance curve performance if possible, reduce cabinet resonances and to reduce measured stored energy. He makes decisions on how he can improve those measurements through proper parts values and evaluates cabinet resonances to meet those goals. He knows that parts quality matters as well, particularly in terms of resolution, and so he uses better parts to get better gains in those areas. If you understand that the goal of any speaker design is to create a good measuring speaker then you understand why Danny doesn't need to listen to the speaker before or after his service. Danny fixes the measured performance of speaker designs that failed to measure well in the first place. This isn't about voicing. We are talking about measured performance. No competent loudspeaker designer sets out to design a speaker that has very poor measured performance.
Your paragraph tells me you're a fan boy and any said about this man will instantly upset you lol, the dude sells overpriced components that only slightly raise the quality 😂
@@AndrewB23 You can buy the components for a parts upgrade anywhere. The top end things do have really reduced bang for the buck. But he's a drag racer on the weekends. Paying a lot for a hair better performance is absolutely his thing. It's not mine. I don't race cars either. Only idiots post that they're laughing at their own jokes.
@@AndrewB23 actually this tells me you get bothered by anyone praising Danny. Let me guess, you have a vintage pioneer or Marantz receiver with Cerwin Vega speakers. I’d be willing to bet you you belong to the Audio Science Review cult.
@@AndrewB23 His comment is exactly how speaker designers go about their work. And you can goodle them discussing it. The precision components are both repeatable (as opposed to a cascade of margins of error) and they make sure the signal isn't smeared by stored energy etc.. It's not magic, and it seems worth it to. lot of people.
With my TV speakers, no. But playing through my Q Acoustics 3050i and Myryad MA240 amp made a difference in mids and higher frequency, most definitely.
Have you posted a review of the Behriger's? I have had a pair for the better part of 20 years both in the studio and in my home. While I do not believe that they stand up to my Tannoy System 12's or my recent purchase of Adam S3V's, I do think they are a better choice than the seemingly studio standard of Yamaha NS10's. Would love to hear your thoughts on the Behriger's.
1st speaker 1st song prefer A for smoother highs, 2nd speakers sound same to me. Maybe will be good idea to provide uncompressed samples for download, (but maybe only actual listening will show the differences)
The only thing I agree with GR Research is using higher quality parts for better sound. His pursuit of the flattest frequency response often leads to dull or bright speakers. I have heard his modified speakers on 3 separate occasions. The mods made it sound different not better or worse than the original. Achieving flat frequency response isn’t hard to do, but making a good sounding speaker with a relative flat response is difficult. In my 40+ years in high end audio, most of the top 10 speakers of all time didn’t have ruler flat frequency response. Actually some had frequency grossly deviating from flat like the Apogee Duetta. Tbh, I don’t think he actually listens to most of his speaker mods before and after.
@@roybatty- I won’t be surprised if I get attacked for my response. Too many people drank the GR kool aid and act like cult members. I actually bought one of GR Research 2 way speakers. They are good for the money, but I don’t agree with his way of modding speakers. It would be interesting to see how another manufacturer’s speakers would sound with his better crossover parts without changing the crossover values versus his mods that changed the cross over values using his parts to flatten the frequency response.
Great video Ron, congratulations! I've heard the difference right on the first music on the Diamond's, the buzz is there, no doubt about it. The second one also got it, but for me not so different as on the first speakers.
Well that is confirming what i thought of these upgrades, real but would prefer buy a speaker that i don't have to spend money on top of it to make it sound great ^^. Great useful video ! (my decision is also because i'm in france, would have been in US maybe the decision would be different)
To me the second clips (B) sounded better than (A), but much more so with the Wharfedales. IMO the upgrades are not really worth it. The manufacturer warranty is voided and the GR-Research components do not come with a warranty. Maybe his kits are the way to go.
Thank you, I am planning to have Danny help me on a pair of B&W speakers that I love how they look and match my setup visually but I know those speaker can do better. Wish me luck! BTW parts does not matter, you can build a plastic engine and put it in a car. Same thing exactly with everything. You don't make precise cuts with a chainsaw...
I won! Differences are very noticeable on both. More on the first one. Danny and GS Research are doing a great job. We need more people with purpose and passionate for what they do. Thank you all.
My thoughts are, the iron in some parts changes the sound electrically, we just need to measure and specify that, the addition to the Thiele Small parameters would be, Fe. Fe would be the ferrous change, as we haven't measured this yet we can't give a scale.
I don't know the exact model of mic you held up at the beginning. But it looks like an RTA Mic. Would be nice to do a cross channel Binaural recording with SM57's or 58's. Or even a better pair then those. Just a thought.
Good on you, Ron for doing this. This industry is mostly populated by males with all of the testosterone issues that come along with that so opinions are very strongly held. That being said I’m a fan of Danny’s upgrades having done one and I don’t think they are overpriced for the value you get.
I couldn't hear a difference over TH-cam, but I'd love hear the comparison in person! I think the upgrades would be an improvement. Now if only I could my Hearing upgraded!!! Great Review Ron! 👍👍👍
I've been in the process for a few years to upgrade my speakers, but as always, i want to make an informed decision. First i wanted the Wharfedale Evo 4.4 , but looking at Danny's video saying their xrossovers and cabinet left much to wish for, i kind of put those plans in a cooler. Then i started to get *really* interested in Polk R700 which are killing everything in their priceless and you don't really need a sub to match those speakers ... and they're affordable .... so they're very high on my buy next list. However.. i've always liked building my own speakers. I built A LOT of speakers on commision when i was younger, and i was looking into building a pair of backloaded horns using a pair of Lowther PM2A - however before actually spending 500€ on 2 Lowther elements, i want to hear how they actually sound in person, in a backloaded horn.. So.. knowing the quality of Danny's work, my primary plan in the X-Statik with the improved filters, but i'm not an electronic wizz so making those filters by myself - i'm pretty sure i'd FK something up and burn something. I would also love to buy the Bully, but they're WAY above my pricepoint @ 4000€.
You should make an engineering showdown. Hire four engineers to design a crossover. It must meet the two driver specifications and cabinet. The mathematics are written on the design. They have the ratings and appropriate tolerance levels for the parts to be selected. Do a test with cheap or average parts and then follow up with a test with higher quality parts. It would be interesting to see if the designs hold up based on design originality with cheap and expensive parts (for different designs). The higher quality parts made a difference with hearing definition and assertedness to the tones and notes when played back. The old crossover sounds generalized and soft with no peaks - highs and lows - to the instruments and transitions between melody and chorus and different instruments. I could tell a difference between the two when each one was but would not care if I was in the club walking around but definitely can hear the difference noticeably - it makes the difference at home getting the nuances and definition for more of a fast paced tempo and enjoyable experience.
On the first run, I preferred Speaker B's lower end. On the second set, I didnt hear an upgrade on B and just moved on - I wasnt using headphones or anything good to listen anyway so didnt want to force it.
Danny's upgrades are great. I have KLH Model 5s. He has only sold a few upgrades of that speaker. In this rare case, I have been sitting on the fence, but I am quite sure Danny and Hobbes are doing great work that is hearable. Do you have an opinion on this particular case?
His better Electrical "quality" X-over componets may sometimes be audibly detectable but his ridiculous iron-steel speaker Terminals sonic ear "allergy" is flippin insanely crazy.....Metallic Terminals of any typical fractional electrical resistance have no audible sound effects....
Even listening on my Bluetooth Sennheisers on the Wharfedale it was night and day difference. On the second demo with the Beringer the difference was much harder to catch.
We're talking of subtle differences, and I agree, but I recognised a fairly clear difference between example a and example b. In the first run example b was definitevely better than example b, in the second run the difference was less, but again example a (the modifed one) was better than example b.
In the first set of example, it was easy to hear that option B was more open, brighter. I preferred option A in all cases. B felt like it had an EQ on it, and brightening things up isnt always better. A sounded more charming to my subjective ear. In the second example it was much harder to hear a difference. To me, B sounded tighter in the low mids. I'm honestly not sure which was "better" - A was more relaxing to listen to, but maybe B had a touch more detail in the mids and low mids? I'm 40 years as a pro studio musician and composer, and that includes a lot of audio engineering. My main monitors are Genelec S30Cs which are amazing speakers - 3 way, internally tri-ampd with ribbon tweeters, so my ears are pretty experienced. I listened to these clips on my crap laptop speakers, and in the first clip it was very easy to hear. The second clip was much more difficult to discriminate between the two. I think maybe the stock Behringer was distorting just a tiny bit more than the upgrade, that may account for the "compression" I heard in the lower mids?
Hi NRD: Am I taking crazy pills? I can definitely hear a difference between A an B. In the first track the vocals are wider in sound stage and thinner in impact. In B the vocals are centerlocked and therefore have more body and presence. The same applies to the guitar. On the second track the cello has more body. As a result this might cause the sound to sound like like its coming more from an inky black background. I have only listened to the tracks and typing this comment now, so let's see what happens by the end of the video.
For an already good system, a beer or 2 is the best affordable upgrade there is.
Yeh, when I set a budget to assemble my system, one of the crucial components to be factored into that budget, was a beer fridge. I purchased a gloss black beer fridge and as it is about the same size as my subs, it can be easily mistaken for one.
@@howardskeivys4184 I bet the fridge has its own sound to add to your listening pleasure ensuring your beer stays refreshingly cold!!!
My beer fridge is manufactured by Miele. It is fitted with an inverter motor/compressor, so is virtually inaudible. But I have mastered the art of opening cans during intensive percussive passages. It adds to the soundstage and prevents my wife from knowing how many cans I’ve opened.
Remember folks, to hear music samples with the most accurate dynamics on a TH-cam stream, disable 'Stable Volume' in the video settings. :)
As for the blind sound comparisons, during the first demonstration, Sample B was slightly more rolled off in the upper midrange, which made the speaker sound more relaxed and balanced. During the second demonstration, Sample A was a little more detailed, but I don't think the differences were as stark as they were in the first sound demo. I would probably never buy an upgrade kit for any speaker I own, but would like someday to buy one of Danny's smaller monitor kits.
thank you for this. i didn't know and did it with stable volume on the first time. the differences are much more apparent to me on the second pass with the stable volume off. either that or placebo effect... 🤣
either way, i'm now convinced that parts matter
Good tip on the TH-cam settings. It did make a difference. At least through TH-cam, my aging ears, and my rather cheap preamp’s headphone jack, the difference is very very slight. Slight is still an improvement though. I’m going to rewatch again once my preamp is upgraded in several weeks. Right now I’m working on my biggest problem which is room acoustics.
How do I do that?
@@kenthobbs9527 go to the gearwheel icon at the lower right of the video
@@kenthobbs9527 With a video playing, click on the gear icon for settings, and select ‘Additional Settings’, and you should see an option for ‘Stable Sound.’
It's quite obvious which one is which in the first speaker set example, because example B sounds WAY better than example A in every case, with B being significantly clearer and more detailed, no matter which track/song was playing...
With the second speaker set example though, the differences between A and B clips are EXTREMELY subtle, almost not even noticeable. The ONLY way I could actually hear ANY differences between the A/B clips on the second speaker set was if I used my very best sound quality headphones AND I listened to the clips extremely carefully AND in a VERY quiet room... Only then could I finally tell that example A, (the upgraded ones), was ever so slightly more "airy" and detailed, with less "veil" to the song at hand, (or "at ear" in this case), than example B (the stock version) was.
I honestly don't think that MOST people, (i.e. NON-audiophiles), would even notice anything different about an exact copy of the original crossover in a speaker, but just using higher quality parts in it, without any other changes, that's why Danny usually tries to improve the overall frequency response, time arrival, decay, phase response, etc. irregularities in most of his speaker upgrades also, like he must have done with the first speaker set in this video, therefore making it significantly clearer and more "present" than the original stock design was.
You can definitely hear an improvement in overall sound quality of a speaker that has been (re-)designed properly from the ground (box) up, including but definitely not limited to just improving the parts quality of the crossover. Everything helps to some degree, some things more than others, and it all can then add up to a quite significant improvement in overall sound quality of the speaker.
I agree. In the first set, the difference was way more clear. I liked B better.
I had a look at the frequency responses that Danny posted after I listened, and I'm really not surprised that the Wharfedales sounded different - he bumped the tweeter level by a couple dB. Of course they sounded more detailed - they're brighter.
How can you hear difference on TH-cam!
Because he is using top quality recording kid, if your playback kit sucks, you will struggle, differences were night and day....
@@sgt_major8419 he could be bullshitting and as no one was there but the poster , who knows.
Using a good pair of headphones helps.
I've noticed over the years that there's a significant difference in the way different individuals hear (especially when it comes to the mids and highs). Then you add individual taste to that and you open up a can of worms. That's why some folks have such strong disagreement on these things. Some simply can't hear very well and don't even know it. Others can hear very well, but haven't trained their brain with enough experience to understand what they're hearing
I currently own Clayton Shaw's (formerly Spatial Audio) X4 Ultra open baffles for orchestral music, as they run almost full range).
ADDITIONALLY HAVE up and running harbeth 30.2 Anniversary speakers; AR3A "improved" loudspeakers (utilizing the massive Sansui BA5000 when they really want to rock out and have friends running through the house enjoying what they do best❤
Finally, I have in a second system the shinjitsu audio's first TOL, and consider myself lucky that not only was this opinion/not necessarily factual) Morris's "loss leader," and he adjusted the price even lower by selling it as open box!
Okay, with all that, the final arbiter for me: piggybacking of Mstr Jackson's statement above: using one's ear in their own environment (if you disagree with me that the room is the most important component then this is not for you. For some, this will require no attention at all, which represents a fraction of another miniscule fraction ("audiophiles").
I am a big proponent of seeking out first a direct to consumer product (DTC). THIS EXCLUDES the appropriate dealerships, who can highly recommend, demonstrate AND deliver and install whatever it is you purchase.
Just so you get to know where I'm coming from re DTC v. the established norm of $$ x $$ x $$, which often includes the distributor along with the retailer!
The best deal for many many people of my age (59), was one of my all-time favorite head cases, Richard Vandersteen (I proudly paid what I was charged) then flagship 5A loudspeakers, which I cheerfully ran for over a decade and no desire for upgrades.
If your purse allows you to do it, then you would do fine working with said dealer who operates as I've described above. My current top three list would be to look at the top of the line from Richard Vandersteen, MBL 101mk2 and their top-of-the-line, with a key interest in Rockport technologies. (I was working with a client, and while he ended up with the MLB 101 Mark II, I had a phenomenal experience with Hi-Fi buys in Atlanta, and purchased the top of the line center channel from Rockport technologies. I'm in Sarasota florida, this client in the Daytona Beach area, and not only was the product delivered, they drove down here Post shipping to make sure it arrived safely AND installed in a manner that is the definition of first class. A very wonderful national dealership is in my backyard, Suncoast Audio. I've known Mike since he opened at least a decade ago. It is truly a unique experience.
Personally, I now only buy used equipment to flip later, or that was built for repair and the lifetime that exceeds my own.
Otherwise it is DTC for me. My main loudspeakers are both DTC products. As is my PBN preamplifier and phonostage, two turntables (George Merrill 😊 acoustic research replica and another courtesy of the brain of the late Thomas Scheu).
All of this "stuff" and my direct contact as a customer of Danny (I've purchased to power cords and speaker cables from him). Based upon the care, respect, service and of course delivering fantastic results, As I have shared with him. If anyone finds him insincere and not led by his inner humanity, go ahead and pull the trigger on me!
Ron, I applaud all of your dedication and zeel not only with what you do but how you go about it. That's what makes you unique and also I simply cannot thank you enough for turning me on to Clayton Shaw! I paid around $10,000, and when I demo them to audio files they begin guessing prices above $40,000...
Error revelation: it is I, the headcase, NOT 😊 the genius Richard Vandersteen, whose extreme 7's is clearly on anyone's short list of endgame oudspeakers¡!¡!
@@roybatty- Yeah, but that trained brain, and experience isn't in the room in this particular test. Right? Also hard to judge based on three unfamiliar tracks. When I make changes in my setup I'll run through dozen of familiar tracks before deciding whether the change was positive, negative, or neutral. No offense to Ron, I know he means well, but he didn't do the modded speaker justice doing it through TH-cam Take the binding post buzz he said he heard as an example. It was completely inaudible, but in room I'm sure it was there
Thanks for sharing.
Unless one is dong a blind test like this one ( A/B ing) back to back
I think it would be very hard to tell the difference. Our brain has a
very short memory when it comes to this audio difference.
If one was to introduce a PEQ into the chain I think it could
also make a big difference and you could tweet all day long
to your liking :)
I wonder where I belong. 33 years old here. Don't believe in audio nirvana, and I haven't for at least a decade, only in good enough.
@@JoelHernandez-tz3vk I can honestly say that 'good enough' was all I required for most of my life, but here's the problem, Once you hear a Hifi setup that sounds truly amazing or magical in a way that you never knew was possible. You hear new things in music you've been listening to for decades AND NOW you can't un-hear it. So you want to try to reproduce that magic in your own listening room. Down the rabbit hole you go and there's no turning back. Atleast that's how it's been for me
I’m a 32 yo male musician with good hearing, tested recently, and i couldn’t hear a significant difference. Any difference I thought there might have been was so subtle that I can’t be sure it’s real. Because I wanted to prefer one over the other, I actually chose the stock speaker both times. But that’s only because I was expecting there to be a difference. I’m not sure there was one
Someone else said this but "Sometimes good enough is good enough".
@@perlman7376 Yeah, for "perfect" audio, all you need is low enough noise and distortion, enough power, a linear response from 20Hz to 20kHz. Probably 15kHz would be fine for anyone over 30. Our hearing is not as good as we think it is. An analogy might be megapixels in a digital photo. 10MP for a 6X4 is more than enough to exceed the resolution of human eyes. Room acoustics obviously very important too.
As a matter of interest, did you have 'Stable volume'' switched off in the video settings when listening, as advised by one of the commenters? I'm never sure whether listening via youtube is the best measure of any of these upgrades but I did hear differences in clarity and response in the first samples, though I'm old and hearing is way past its best.
my hearing isn't good. I couldn't hear a bit of difference. @homecinemaking397 compare some cornwalls to SVS Pinnacle...and there was a huge difference
I dunno. Im a 58 year-old male who has been a part-time semi pro vocalist (bass-baritone) before but not what I do for a living. And I was just listening via TH-cam on an iPad with headphones, which will be ridiculed by many I am sure.
And I wanted to hear no difference, but I preferred the upgrade in both cases-not something that seemed to me “blatant, night & day”-I just happened to prefer the upgraded speakers. I have no skin whatsoever in this game. Im considering building DIY speakers for the first time so just checking stuff out.
A little nostalgic for me too-first speakers I ever owned were Wharfedale Diamonds in the mid 1980s-these stock ones sound way better than those did in the 1980s…
I picked out the upgraded speakers in both cases. I appreciate what GR is doing for those dedicated to having the best, regardless of cost.
Thing is, the cost for those miniscule improvements outway the benefits, imo. Both of those speakers are wonderful sounding in stock form.
That said, I've designed and built more than a few loudspeakers that would have benefitted from a better crossover design; not so much by utilizing super high dollar parts, just a better crossover design in general.
The problem with these types of listening tests, are, quite a few of the differences, especially when only parts quality has been upgraded with the same values, is that a lot of the audible differences will be in things that don't translate to YT clips.
Better parts lead to improvements in things like: soundstage, imaging, the ambience of the acoustic space where the recording was made, and other attributes that have to do with spatial cues.
The differences will even get greater when the crossover has been redesigned, too.
100%
Set your playback to HD and use the most neutral, detailed headphones you can find. For me that's the Hifiman HE400S. BUT - your point is taken.
oh, they translate. I know the algoritm will play as low as 8 hz, ive seen the test equipment register. Pro sound Sub manufacturer showed me. they dont mess around
Completely disagree with you. YT is not compressed at all. I could perceive a noticeable difference from both samples in my IPad Pro , wearing my JBL in-ear headphones.
And playing this via TH-cam through my stereo system, all the signal is still passing through the crossovers of my own speakers
I never comment on TH-cam, but in this case, I made an exception. I was involved with technical development of audio systems over a 32 year period with Oxford Speaker Company (back in the day), Ford, GM, Chrysler, Sony and Harman (JBL). I worked with the "golden ears" of each of these companies. I worked in development of sound profiles for various applications. I was professionally trained in listening. And I have a pair of Danny's XLS Encore speakers and I have say they are truly outstanding. I had no difficulty hearing the difference between the comparative speakers in your test. In the first round, the extended low frequency response and improved headroom were notable in the upgraded speaker. In the second round the upgrade yielded a more subtle difference, but the extended headroom was quite notable. This being said, I believe the danger is concluding that all of GR Research's upgrades actually offer a benefit. For example, the binding posts of the first speaker would likely limit the performance and simply upgrading to ANY better attachment method would yield a similar improvement. But, you don't need tube connectors. As for the second example, improved components almost certainly improve sonic performance for any speaker, but do you need Sonicaps and mega-dollar inductors to get an improvement? The answer is no. The insidious nature of Danny's business model is very troublesome. Yes, his speakers are great and upgrading binding posts, installing heavier internal wire and upgrading components can potentially improve any speaker, but to say that you need tube connectors, mega-dollar components and ultra speaker cables is just an assertion that has no merit in the real world. Blind listening tests in multiple scenarios and environments over the years have basically demonstrated that no one can tell the difference between expensive speaker cables and 12 gauge lamp cord - no one - and I've seen the data and experiments many times. So the bottom line is that Danny offers some great speaker packages, and some of his component upgrades make sense. However, steer away from the mega cost components, speaker cables and tube connectors. There are more cost effective options that yield the same improved performance.
Yes. I liked him, until I saw him ridicule those who know and tell the truth about speaker cables. Utter nonsense and makes everything he says suspect.
i can't hear one spec of difference.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I seem to be wrong quite often...forgive me), but I recall that someone at MacIntosh (perhaps, the originator) said that speaker cables don't matter that much. I haven't seen a video, yet, where Danny implies that cabling matters a lot...other than these tubular copper terminations which augment the "signal path".
The British company Quad did the following:
They connected their amp between the speaker cables from the power amp that 'sounded the best' and the speakers.
They leveled them out and did the A to B comparisons to prove their amp did nothing to the sound and thus was completely neutral. No-one could hear if the Quad was the amp to the speakers or the amp feeding the Quad.
Later on an audio show they showed their extreme new orange speaker cables. These sounded incredible according to the listeners.
Later they told what it was: the cheap cabling used for electric gardening tools.
The technician of my audio specialist tried a 100m roll of RG58 cabling, feeding it with a 1MHz square wave and comparing the input to the output. No difference to be seen. So, if your expensive interlink sounds better, it's because it's not linear.
He's surely not all about speaker cables and tube connectors. I don't remember hearing anything about speaker cables on any vid not specifically about speaker cables. Though many say good cables are a thing. He seems to be offering precision components that don't interfere with the signal quality. Is that controversial?
Not enough difference to me for the money. Hard pass.
Yeah, same here. I have fairly good headphones and I heard literally no difference.
I have a cheap pair of bluetooth jbl headphones from walmart & I can hear more detail, & decay but it is subtle Had to replay it a couple times & then i guessed right before skipping to the end to see results. But I think the best thing about these upgrades is to know you have quality parts, & that brightness & fatigue can be tamed, i bet i could hear a big difference playing my kinda music
No difference whatsoever.
I have Focal Clears - and they are CLEAR - heard zero differences. If anything, I would need to hear the same clip repeated, a, b, a, b, at least 5 or 6 times in a row before I would be able to pick out a consistent difference. Not to mention, the one thing out of all his upgrades that are the most ridiculous are those tube connectors.
There are differences. And in room and in real life there is more. Whether you like it on your gear in your room? It depends....on your own ears, besides budget of course.
I just found your channel and this post. I'm 60 years old and have been a hard core listener, musician, recoding engineer and amateur song writer most my life. So this is a clean perspective. These are really had as we are all listening through whatever our end system is. Mine is a set of Focal 2 ways and a class D amp.
Wharfedales to me sounded better stock on all songs. Mostly upper mid range and top end. I like them either way (have heard them in person) but liked this example stock.
The Behringers to me sounded better modded. Almost exactly the same perception for me. Better upper mids and highs. Acoustic drums sounded more realistic, woody to me.
Fun experiments. Source, amps and room have way more influence in the end.
00:00 - Introduction
03:42 - Wharfedale Diamond
08:43 - Behringer Truth
13:08 - The Big Reveal
Ron. It’s not only Danny that has evolved. Look at you. Great and a bit more mature, that we all love. 😊
Thanks buddy!
Danny looks great. Ron still looks serial killer-ish with that beard.
@@wa2368Nooooo 😂
@@wa2368 Ha, don't pick up that hitchhiker with the beard!
Try this - Do the same experiment - Compare A to B - But unknowingly use the same speaker for both. Guaranty you will get a bunch of people stating A or B sounded better, simply because they think they are listening to two different speakers (in this case a crossover upgrade), so one must sound better than the other. And if you need to be trained to hear the differences, is a $600 upgrade really worth it? Parts of course matter, but how much is the difference worth it to the typical customer? If you upgrade $1500 speakers with a $600 upgrade kit, and it sounds better, ask yourself if a $600 upgrade in woofers or tweeters would have been even better? When you buy speakers, you have a budget and try to buy the best sound for the money. You might listen to ten pairs of speakers, all sound different, and you choose what you like best. There really is no best speaker, everyone has different tastes in what they consider a nice sound, and that's why there are hundreds of speaker companies. I have a pair of Stereophile Class B rated speakers for my main setup, and they sound awesome, but I actually enjoy listening to a pair of vintage 70"s speakers more. They don't technically sound as as good, but there is just something about the sound that is captivating to me.
You hit a couple of nails on the head !
So true
That sounds like something you could do at home by yourself. Let us know if you were fooled.
Just speaking for what I've experienced in the only speaker upgrade I've ever done, and that was on a pair of low grade RCA three way floor speakers
year 1999. The drivers made the biggest difference.
Starting earlier this year, I incrementally upgraded them starting with the crossovers first.
Nothing fancy, (keeping in mind they're cheap speakers, and this was a hobby project) I ordered Dayton crossovers to replace the tiny crossovers that were the size of a bottle cork. The new crossovers had a mixture of air and iron core inductors.
That change was minimal.
Only real differences, were that it seemed to open them up a little. But when I did the bass drivers next, the overall sound was hugely better. Next came the mid range, and again a nice noticeable difference.
Then I replaced the piezo tweeters with some Morel Soft Dome tweeters, and that was it, the horns on the 60's music with horns from Sinatra, Henry Mancini and such, was incredible.
For what I experienced, the drivers made the most difference, but the original drivers were of really low grade. Also, RCA(Radio-Shack) didn't match the ohms rating of each driver, which seemed odd. Bass was 8 ohms, midrange was 7, and tweeter was 6.
All the new drivers were 8 ohms with sensitivity of 90db.
So, all in all, the bass driver made the biggest difference in sound. I also added internal bracing.
They actually sound rather respectable now, with a nice tight bass on two channel listening.
Of course the previous bar was set pretty low.
Same here. I've got a big pair of Sansui speakers made in 1971 in my game room that I've recapped. At high volumes they sound really good playing classic rock and my friends always request them on poker night. Technically they measure pretty bad compared to my modern ELAC towers.. and because of comb filtering the Sansui's sound kinda dull at lower volumes, but above 85db and up to about 100db they come to life!! The way they reproduce the sound of a drum kit and screaming electric guitar is really amazing. Yet, if I mentioned the model number I'd get negative comments telling me they're nothing but kabuki crap lol.
Fantastic video. I have wondered why Danny doesn’t do this on his own videos where he shreds the build quality of other speaker makers (which I don’t necessarily care for). I was actually considering ordering his kit for my DW6s. after this video, I could definitely hear the difference. But I actually preferred the stock Wharfdales.
Personally if you like your ZUs ,I'd never change their ';personality. I installed the Clarity cap upgrade on my ODW and guess what? Just not worth it.
I can correctly pick upgraded A/B sound clips parts, but differences is not huge, main sound character is quite same. These 2 speakers are 200$ speakers and I think upgrading crossover parts with sonic caps and aircore inductor etc cost more than these speaker costs. I wish you could choose speakers worth to crossover upgrade.
Well I have to say the upgrades are better, but not as dramatic as you suggest! I’m listen through Audeze headphones and they all sounded better than what you typically get on TH-cam 😂 I was able to discern the difference, but again i thought it was subtle. 🤷🏽
I have purchased and installed three of GR Research upgrade kits. The first was on the Klipsch RP600 M. I was so impressed, I decided to upgrade my Magnepan 3.7i speakers. Again the improvement was impressive. The most recent upgrade was on the Klipsch Cornwall 3. I have just finished it and I am very pleased with the results. I have the ability to swap the new crossover with the stock crossover easily so comparison between the two is easy.
That's awesome. That Magnepan upgrade process looked pretty difficult. I couldn't do it, so hats off to ya for that one. Which of the 3 kits you bought was the best upgrade?
I'd love to upgrade my speakers with a GR Research kit. Unfortunately, they don't make one for my speakers(Revel F 206) yet. Maybe one day. I know they have cheap parts in them. My problem is, I'm useless when it comes to projects like that. I'd likely ruin my speakers. It'd be nice though.
Why don’t these companies just offer upgrade versions of same speakers?
Magnepan now does offer an upgraded x version. You can also send them old Magnepan models to upgrade.
I agree with you. Fixing speakers by charts is just ridiculous.
So you have specific experience with this?
I’ve designed several speakers and upgrades, even sold a few. I could not have gotten to where I am without Danny. I’ve learned so much from him. His approach is a common sense one, where real world measurements and trial and error trump the fancy computer simulations that most designers get hung up on. I’ve also emailed GR with questions and always gotten a response either from Danny or Hobbes. This is remarkable when you consider I’ve never once ordered anything from them. Danny is straightforward, a great teacher, and an honest businessman, not to mention an amazing designer. Thanks for getting him started on TH-cam, Ron.
I have been designing speakers too and built a few pairs. Try this for the EXPERIENCE:
Get a big box and put a 10" woofer in it with about a 5.6 mh inductor on it. For expensive woofers, may go a smaller inductor. And mount a 5" OPEN FR driver on top of the box. For mounting, start off with using lots of Blue Tack or plasticine, and slope it back a lot so it's not so much in your face (experiment). Piggy back connect the open FR driver to the woofer binding post at the back of the box. If it's an expensive FR driver (and 8 ohm) just connect it directly. Or (if it's a cheap $9 driver like mine) you can build a filter for the open FR driver. Open FR drivers have tweeter treble performance cos of it being open and treble comes from both sides of the cone (for more treble level and more extended as well)!
If you make a filter, use electrolytic caps for FR drivers (compare with ceramic cap and you will know what a I'm on about). 😅 Ceramics sound too brittle and scratchy on FR! Electrolytic caps sound WAY more silky and transparent than Ceramics! 😅 This is only with FR, though. 😅 For tweeters...not so much! 😅 My filter is a 100 mf cap in series with a 3 ohm resistor and they are both in parallel with a 2 mf E cap. (That 2 mf cap is particularly important to be an E cap).
This is where it's OPTIONAL (and not for the faint hearted). Get cheap FR drivers and cutting off the whizzer cone (if it has one) and cut off the dome in the center (if it has one). Or just get drivers with the hard stationary phase plug. If it's a paper or plastic dome in the center, it's air trapped inside an enclosed cavity (causing resonance inside, making it sound d sippy). 😅 Cut the dome off at 1/8" above the base of the dome. It's a tiny whizzer that is not out-of-phase so much, like the regular whizzers are. Put soft felt inside voice coil tube to stop dust (not for the faint hearted). Now, the innovation really starts:
With a stiff hobby blade, slit the cone (right through) like 1/8" out from the center edge and make sure the edges DON'T TOUCH, just use the blade to have a small gap like a half a mm, to stop vibrations. Make the slits 1 cm long with half cm gaps (that are not cut). Do it right around, spacing it accordingly. Now repeat the process about 1 cm out. 😅 For the best treble in the world! Better than any tweeter I heard! I took my speakers to the hifi shop and they went crazy over them! 🎉
How it sounds:
Sometimes when I am in my room I hear someone talk and it sounds like it's a person in the room, so much that I jumped out of my skin a few times, but there's nobody else in the room! 😅
Once when I was in my room I heard a low flying jet make a low pass over our house, and I looked out the window for a few seconds and couldn't see anything! Then I realised it was in my speakers (that were just a meter away). 😅
I made a pair of coaxials + woofer speakers for my friend, and once he had a problem with his phone, fumbling with it for a few seconds, trying to stop it from beeping, But he then realised it was in his speakers, they were over 10 feet away from him! 😅
So you can imagine how the music sounds. If you are watching a band on your tablet, you are at the gig, dancing with the band (in your mind). If there is any REVERB in a recording, you are going to hear it! Where the med range meets the treble! Wow! 😅
'Fancy simulations' do work. And opinions means crap without data backing it up.
@@TheDumbTake-xb6rr funny you should say that, so Danny sitting there with his charts and measurments, spectural decay, ect. dont mean anything??! to me that is data backing it up........
He knows how to design a crossover filter, but the hucking of hyper-expensive parts and nonsense tweaks (power cables, anyone?) makes me firmly disagree with the honest businessman part.
@ His cables are far more affordable than competitors. I’ve not tried one so I won’t comment.
On the first clip, the sibilance on A was very obvious and objectionable. On B it was much less objectionable but still a bit over the top. So I was certain A was the unmodified sound. Yes, I heard the difference in parts.
The second clip wasn't as obvious to me.
I was just listening with the internal speaker on my MAC.
you should offer full quality download links to avoid youtube compression. do you? I don't see any links.
Agreed !
I agree. I also think the difference was quite clear - even for my 53 year old ears - with youtube shenigans. Still, full quality sound files would fit this theme very well.
I liked the sound of the stock speakers
I landed on the same thing no joke lol
Likewise! But this was with Bluetooth headphones. It might have been different if I was using wired cans with my laptop.
That's a real risk with upgraded speakers! They get much more revealing and will let us hear problems upstream. Like when the system isn't up to snuff or the song is badly recorded/mastered. Stock speakers with cheap parts usually hide those problems. That's why it's always a good idea to take care of the rest of the system first before upgrading or changing the speakers!
@@geminijinxies7258I would start with the speakers, so I can listen to which part in my system that ain’t good, if there are any problem.
@@geminijinxies7258 Cheap speakers/part only hide problems elsewhere if they have significant problems. Speakers that are more detailed, as opposed to more "laid back", will reveal problems elsewhere. But detailed does not mean cheap. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I got both right. Imaging is better and clarity too. For someone used to listening critically not too difficult. And - I just used the built in speakers on my SAMSUNG TABLET S7 - no high-resolution headphones needed. Hats off to Danny of GR Research. Excellent recording quality - well done! All the best, Rob in Switzerland
The question is, is making everything flat even more than most studio monitors are going to make your speakers trully better to listen to? Not talking about sonicaps or connectors or crossovers that could improve sound quality? Its kind of confusing!
I just listened again. The first example was very subtle to my ears, the sample B did seem a bit smoother. Not dull just smoother, I don't know how else to say it.
The second example was more obvious. Sample A definitely sounded better. A noticeable difference even on my little cheap reference speakers. Much more refined upper end. More dynamics in tone overall. More clearly defined separation of instruments. Better parts in the crossover definitely sounded better to me. Thanks for the video.
I definitely heard subtle differences. But I got the first one right and the second one wrong. It seemed that the upgrades had different effects on each speaker. After listening to the first, I was listening for the same effects on the second and that turned out to not be the case.
So my problem would be, both speakers sounded good regardless. It would be a matter of preference if you preferred the stock or the upgrade. To me it seems, you are not always guaranteed to like the upgrade better. So while it may measure better, which is what Danny seems to care about, will you really find it to your tastes?
Finally, would I do an upgrade to a speaker? I think in my case, if I liked the way my speaker sounded stock, I would not choose an upgrade. It might sound different with an upgrade but would I like that different sound? If I had a speaker that I thought could use some help or had a bit of an off sound, I might want to try it. But probably not before looking at where the extra money could be spent on a next level speaker. In which case why not go to the man himself and try one of his personally designed speakers to get the full GR sound. That would make more sense to me than throwing parts at another speaker on top of what you already spent.
I preferred the sound of the stock speakers with some of the clips that having virtually no appreciable difference.
I like Danny’s products and heard a difference -improvement -in his upgrades. The hifi world is better because of his contributions.
I've definitely learned alot listening to Danny. Didn't know as much as I thought I did
I agree
Same. I’ve learned what to look for and how to listen to equipment.
I picked B on the first one, but also B on the second one.
Lol no he sells overpriced components
Very interesting Ron!
I have to say that I liked the upgrade version better both times. Better clarity, imaging, and soundstage. Just a little bit more of that you are there presence. Actually, presence is a good descriptor.
I’ve never purchased a thing from Danny although I do enjoy his videos. Maybe one of these days…..
Keep up the great work
I don't know exactly what Danny did to these but I've seen his videos regarding upgrading speakers- he usually builds a better crossover, I believe. The first test A sounded a bit bright, actually, for Wharfedales and B sounded more polished with added depth, although not as bright. With the second demo, I could definitely hear the clarity difference in the B part of that test. That being said, I don't really think it added that much to the Wharfedales to want to spend the money to upgrade them. But, if you like to play with your toys by taking them apart then power to you.
I got hold of a Pair of EPI 100v speakers. Interesting thing I read about them... is that the engineer that created them... used a heavier gauge wire winding, to automatically filter out the Highs, from the woofer coil itself. His Theory, was that it would eliminate a crossover component... and that may lead to a cleaner Musical Signal...
Not sure if its been proven... But let me tell you... these speakers are on a whole other level, compared to anything Ive ever heard / owned before. The speakers "Vanish".. and the music becomes Holographically 3D... without you being able to tell where the sounds are being projected from. The bass from the very powerful, massive magnet 8" woofers... is Punchy / Fast, Musically Accurate (not artificial sounding, like Ported speakers) and a Lot Deeper level of Bass... that you would Never expect from such a small sized speaker cabinet. The Inverted Tweeters, are extremely detailed and revealing... without being Fatiguing at all. The 3D Soundstage, is one of the Widest, that Ive ever experienced, hands Down. You can get stand almost anywhere in the room, and get a perfect "sweet-spot" image, without any notable Drop-Off in decibels. Doesnt matter if they are on the floor, on stands, one laying on its side... and the other being vertical... or even if one is partially under a desk. The thing is insanely amazing. (ohh, and they seem to sound best, when placed on the floor, and within like a foot distance, from a wall)
There is only a Single Capacitor for he Tweeters. Nothing else required. Easily swapped out, if / as needed.
Not that long ago, I was at the local high end stereo shop... and they were demo'ing a $3500 pair of modern, tall, tower speakers. When the salesman smiled, asking me what I thought about them.. I actually couldnt contain myself from laughter. My used, 70s era, $100 re-foamed EPI's, utterly DESTROYED them in every single Metric possible. It wasnt even in the same Universe of Comparison.
If anyone picks a pair up... Make sure the woofers are Originals (the unique small dustcap, tends to give it away), Replace the single Cap, and make sure that they have the Upgraded Tweeter Model. The elder inverted tweeters.. have a Fiber-Board mount... Where as the newer model of their inverted tweeters, has a plastic mount. A former EPI / Genesis Physics employee, still hand makes replacement parts... including an even more improved version of the famous inverted tweeter.. at his Humanspeakers website.
The only downside to the EPIs, are that they need a good deal of Power to drive them... and they wont play as loud as more efficient + ported speakers. Its more than loud enough for me... Plenty enough to easily get you kicked out of your apartment. That said... the superior magnet + coil strength... and the sealed box... creates a Superior level of Cone Control. This equates to FAR less Micro-Distortions... and as such, you will hear NEW things in your old music... that you have never heard before.
For example... I was listening to a song, that I believe was from Phill Collins... and at one point in this particular song, you usually cant make out what lyrics he is singing... because his vocals, and the music... end up Muddying and Distorting them.. to the point where they Merge / Flatten into each other. With the EPI's.. for the very first time... I was able to easily make out every single Word he was singing in that spot... without any strain nor guessing. The vocals, and the musical instruments in the background... all remained perfectly Separated and Detailed. I was totally blown away... and started re-listening to every single CD, that I own.
Now... Can they compete with +$20k speakers? I have no clue. Ive never heard speakers that cost anywhere near that price tag. Also, there are other EPI models, that are more than likely to beat my own model... such as the EPI 1000's which have 4 pairs of drivers each (8 drivers per speaker). Ive never got to hear such speakers, so who knows how good they are, in person. All I can do, is share my experience with the speaker model that I own.
Also note, that since the are a Sealed speaker, you need to crank them to medium / high volume levels to get the best sounding bass potentials. At lower volume levels.. they still sound good... but its on a whole other level of Dynamics... at mid to high levels. You can fix low volume bass, by using an EQ, and bumping up the bass levels. This will excite the Woofers far earlier, even with less overall volume levels. This is also an issue with speakers that have passive radiators, too. Where as Ported speakers, have the Opposite problem... When you push them too loud / hard... you tend to get very Artificial + Droning sounding bass... and often even get Port Chuff noises, too.
There is no perfect Solution. However, if you want the best, most naturally musical sounding bass... always go for a good quality Sealed speaker. Next best, would be Passive Radiators. Im not sure about Open Baffles... because Ive never had the opportunity to hear them (other than a mini prototype, from some cheap parts I had laying around. Not valid enough for any serious conclusions... but those mini satellites sounded quite decent for what they were.
Anyway... Here is the Deal about Speaker Upgrades:
If the drivers are of poor quality... they will always create micro-distortions. At best, better crossovers can help reduce Some of them.. by increasing or decreasing the workload, for each specific Driver. However... in the end... there is only so much you can do. The magnet strength, coil strength, and build quality (rigidity)... are far more critical to performance, than anything else. Its like comparing a generic cars motor... against a Race Car's motor. They are two completely different beasts. While you can do a few tweaks to improve the generic engine... its NEVER going to be capable of what a dedicated Race Car engine is capable of. And if you go even further... the Race car itself... has superior brakes, suspension, shifting speed, gearing, cooling, downforce, aerodynamics, better tires, a stiffer frame, and much more. You just cant easily transform a standard car... to come even close to a racecar. And if you do... you are replacing all of the critical parts, with Race Quality parts... which is the equivalent, to swapping all of your speakers Drivers, with FAR superior drivers.
The designer of your EPI 100’s was Winslow Burhoe and to this day I believe he is one of the most brilliant speaker designers ever! Although I now own and am very happy with my Gershman Acoustics Grand Avante Gardes, (which also are a sealed design and a lot more expensive) I still own multiple speakers of great value that Winslow designed that I will not part with!!
@@Michmermir2I have 35+ pair of epi/genesis physics..
I’ve narrowed my preferred audio channels down to a bare minimum. New Record Day is one of my select few. Ron is a straight shooter and a valuable resource. Keep up the good work.
Thank you so much!
At this moment I haven been having trouble with my hearing, my equipment is simple, cheap Alesis Elevate 5 Monitors, ELAC 10" Sub, crossed over at 80-ish Hz with a Bheringer SuperX Pro, fed by a Topping 10B Balanced DAC.... so not high-end at all... but balanced signal path all around. The difference was noticiable in both comparisons and I liked the "upgraded" version better.... It was a surprise because I don't really like Dany, but gotta admit that it's true! This inspires me to buy a full Kit from GRC and try it!!! Thanks for the video... I was SURPRISED that even with a ringing left ear I could hear the difference.
For me, the difference is huge, but some guys posted here that they weren’t able to hear it. - I’ve first listened on the internal speakers of a Mac Mini (pretty bad speakers) and was able to hear more clarity and tonal balance in both upgraded speakers, but wanted to find out if the difference changed with other equipment above $10K - and as expected the difference got even more audible (for me). This means, people like me should probably spend the extra money, and people who cant hear any difference shouldn’t. It’s as easy as that.
I feel the same way about tubes. Some people just cannot hear any effects from tubes. I grew up listening to tube amps and preamps. I really notice when they are not in the system. And solid state frankly gets on my nerves because I keep missing that something extra... Tube preamp into a solid state amp sounds fine to me. Usually. Still can't beat a good all-powerful tube amp.
Got both wrong, wanted to get his upgrade for my Infinity SM-152 but he wants $800, can't justify that.
Aii, but is saves you some bucks!
TOO MUCH MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I work in music with my ears full-time and I can firmly say I couldn't pick out a meaningful difference with the Behringers. Load of nonsense to me - and I can hear 0.5dB EQ moves, so it's not as though my ears aren't trained. The Wharfedales had a pretty firmly different HF response so of course they sounded different - you're hearing the change in EQ.
dats the joke
Got curious, when i had the feeling after listening to the first A B:s that the a was stock, (didnt listen to the behringers) so i recorded the clips to my DAW and had at it a little bit. Now better or worse is subjective. I did feel that B sounded a little better, hence why i got curious about what the difference was, trying to do a little null test and realised that the second B clip was pahseinverted. So running them untoched all bass was gone, pushing the phase button bass came back. So fiddling alittle more with it, and 3 points with a fabfilter EQ and i liked the stock speaker better. Clip B sounded compressed to me as well, and the wavefile shows that as well on the second song. Less open somehow, its insanely hard trying to explain sound... Did in the end prefer the stockspeaker, and guess i would rather put a good eq infront of them.
My honest opinión the upgraded speakers sounded like adding U shape equlization quite cler diference great for critical listening too harsh to play music for hours, i'll rather keep them musical
Oh thank goodness! I got both right! What I think I heard in the pre upgraded speakers was the smearing that Danny always talks about. I always used to wonder what it would sound like, before and after. The post upgraded speakers had much better separation between instruments, much better sound stage. Amazing. Thanks to Danny for all he does, although he would sell a lot more if he included before and after sound clips. Thanks to you Ron for doing this.
Well, this was interesting. I correctly identified the upgraded Wharfedales, but when it came to the Behringers, I could not tell them apart.
Exact same for me.
Same , highs, and mids much nicer in whardales.
Same here, but in the first sample the level was higher for the upgrade.
Well, that's probably because the filter values didn't change on the Behringer, so... yeah. The Wharfedales are pretty different in their axial response with the new crossover - quite a bit brighter.
I could hear the difference between the wharfdale original/update. The biggest difference I could detect was in the midrange and high treble region, seemed like just a linear adjustment (as opposed to some reduction of non-linear behavior. While this could also be the case, it was not the reason I detected a difference between them.)
I could not hear the difference between the behringer A/B.
I suspect if there weren't some obvious lobing issue or distortion at crossover region in the original speaker, a DSP would have done the same job, only faster and cheaper.
picked both correctly listening through my apple laptop. ;ove these type of videos! Thanks Ron!
Perfect!
Wharfedale: Very easy test as in Danny Richie's video.
But I can not hear the buzz of the stock binding post :(
Behringer: Easy test but the differences are not so great than with Wharfedales (I like more the W sound, more life, enjoy, credible..). Vocal theme, the differences have been reduced but I can still distinguish them, but I have to concentrate a little more.
You know, with my modded KEF Q100 coaxials, near field. Hybrid integrated Magnat MA 900 modded too, Direct ON (without JJ 12AT7 tubes). In fact, ALL the components of both of my systems have been modified by me.
I can’t either, I tried and even cranked the volume and it’s not detectable.
I dont know how he did it but all of these speakers sound a lot like my Klipsch One bluetooth.
😂 funny thing .... they all sound like a Galaxie AO3 over here 😅. Maybe I should plug into my stereo down stairs. But then they will probably sound like my Bose 301seris IIs with Advent fried eggs 😮. Yeah they sound like my Bose 301seris IIs with Advent fried eggs. With further listening the modified Warfdales did have some sibilance that the factory crossover masked out with the female vocals. I think that a third direct sample of the sorce should have been been provided.
I could clearly here the differences on both speakers and I also guessed which were the upgraded ones. How? Because the upgrades sounded much smoother and more balanced. I frequently listen to my music very loudly and a smoother response will enable me to listen longer without ear fatigue. On a poorly designed set of speakers, your ears will be fatigued in minutes on high volume and will sound very harsh. Thanks for this comparison and for showing just how important it is to design the crossovers the right way with good quality parts!
I did not listen with headphones, but with my Canton Karat 920 2-way bookshelf speakers and was correct in both instances. I've build a pair of Jean Hiraga's full range speakers with Fostex FE103e units and might try those too, because they are more revealing.
I skipped the upgrade step and got the X static speaker kit with upgrade crossover parts. They are an open baffle sealed woofer hybrid that are a fun build and best sound quality for cost. Even taking cost factors out of consideration these speakers sound spectacular.
Would love to see a video on these.
@@rothgartheviking858 Not going to happen, this was done some time back ( when I was going to buy the kit ) Ron did his thing as a reviewer but was never uploaded to TH-cam. Apparently disappointed with them and sent them back. Apparently changed his views when he heard them at Danny's place. It all stopped there ! To be fair This is what i was told and read, I could be wrong. The thing is I noted as many others to have the X statiks reviewed, didn't happen.
I always learn something from Danny’s videos. Very informative stuff. My situation is that my hearing is not what it use to be so really great speakers are kind of a waste for me now. Years ago when my hearing was good, I would be all in for a pair of his speakers. So, I get what he is doing but I guess I wouldn’t really benefit from it. Danny is alright.
Good job Ron! I easily heard the difference through my headphones. Obviously I didn't know the order of which one was A or B but I chose B instantly on the Wharfs. I chose A on the second speakers. After hearing the results of which was which, I give Danny a thumbs up!
I like these kinds of videos 🙂The upgrade of Wharfedale Diamond made a major difference which was easy to instantly hear. The upper range was much more transparent and engaging. Sound sound stage was bigger and imaging was much better. Question, did you move the microphone between takes? In the clips of the upgraded version (of the Wharfedale Diamond) the vocals were slightly more to the left compared to the factory clips.
I didn’t move the microphone, thanks for the comment!
@@Newrecordday2013 I heard the same thing... changes in instrument and vocal placement. There's nothing about a revoicing or tube connectors which should relocate the mix. That would be BAD! I then also have to assume you were recording a stereo pair. Ron, did you have two pair of each model? This recording should have been done in mono. One mic. One speaker. You've introduced variables... even if only potential. By revoicing, Danny may have changed the horizontal frequency response which would necessitate adjusting toe-in for each version per your own L.O.T.S. suggestions. If all you did was setup for the modified version and then slap down the unmodified version without these changes, you will of course get differences. But if you did adjust toe-in for the modified vs. unmodified, then you introduced variables. I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I definitely heard them. I just don't understand why you'd keep variables in play when trying to make a point. One mic. One speaker. No other changes. Otherwise, we're also hearing your own L.O.T.S. setup preference applied to adjusted horizontal freq. responses. I appreciate the effort and work on the video, but in my opinion, the obvious effects of stereo differences diminish the impact of your results.
@@johncreech6012 one of the biggest changes to a speaker with upgraded crossovers is soundstage. How can this be judged with a single speaker? Maybe the moved voices is correct, and this was being hidden due to "smearing" of the signal with original crossovers?
@@johncreech6012 judging these upgrades in mono reminds me of Amir passing final judgement on speakers by listening in mono 🤦All the good work he does on ASR is instantly undone by not listening in stereo, in a more typical listening environment.
@@RacingAnt regarding "biggest changes to a speaker with upgraded crossovers is soundstage"... what acoustic principle are you using to justify this statement? I'm not saying you're wrong. But crossovers determine frequency response and phasing. Assuming you change the response equally in both speakers of a stereo pair, how/why are you suggesting a voice moves across the soundstage with a frequency response change? Just saying it doesn't make it true. I agree a soundstage can appear wider but we're talking about moving an instrument from a medium pan-right to the middle in some of the Wharfedale recording.
I watched a video where the guy changed nothing but the interconnects and did recordings like you did. The difference was clearly night and day. While responses are roughly the same, the difference on a you tube video through a cheap set of headphones was very clear. The sound stage opened up. Now, limited by my headphones and the audio driver in my phone I decided to ditch a 3 dollar cable and buy an overpriced Audioquest cable. Yeah, same thing. Never heard Transyberian orchestra sound like I was there.
So i decided I would test out my own crossovers and upgrade a very cheap and regrettable speaker I bought 30 years ago. Jensen JHS 1533's. I was 15, forgive me. I sealed the box, sprayed the inside of the box with rhino Liner, braced the box, put stuffing in the box, replaced the speaker cups, put much better wire in the box and built a real xover network for the box. 300 bucks total and I will never let them go now. It is absolutely astounding what high performance parts you can put into speakers with quality parts.
As far as the video goes. I could hear the vibration on the stock Wharfedales, I could also hear the tinny sound the stock Behringers had. Its not snake oil. Its just good parts!
The "elephant in the room" is the COST of these "upgrades" by Danny.
exactly ..the cost of the upgrades aren't worth the difference for most people; the differences are subtle enough that you need an AB comparison and extended listening to really tell the difference .. if you don't have access to an "adequate" AB comparison, it will be close enough that you're not going to miss the upgrade...also, the biggest elephant in the room is that you have to be reasonably young to have a hearing bandwidth that will allow you to hear the full effect of any changes... anybody (who's kids are young adults) are old enough to most likely be unable to hear 15 KHz.
I am a senior and only hear to 13 KHz.
I listened to the audio from this video on a very resolving system and did not hear enough difference to warrant the cost differential! For me there is absolutely no difference in sonic enjoyment between a $500 DAC and a $10,000 one..
That's up to people to decide - he posts the costs. I think people get attached to their gear, and this is a way to show some love for something they love.
My ears did not fail me. I preferred the upgrade both times. The difference was very audible AND without headphones. Hat is off to you Ron, outstanding work!
am I a moron for not being able to tell the difference in the examples?
Nope it's so minor that the hundreds of extra dollars for the upgrade makes no sense
Danny doesn't usually play sound clips for this reason. There is some measurable difference. But when the audio is compressed for TH-cam and then played back through inferior speakers, the differences are minimized. Danny recently posted clips on his TH-cam channel which you can download and play through your stereo system. Any differences should be more evident there. The stock kits at GR Research have parts on par, and often better, than speakers triple the cost. His premier kits offer even better performance; but the return on investment is less. Danny is a drag car ethusiast and mechanic. Those guys might spend hundreds of dollars on new heads because they weight 12 lbs less than the stock part. If you're not a perfomance junkie, sticking with the standard kit gets you a great speaker and great bang for your buck. This is very different than when Danny upgardes a poorly designed speaker. Often, he does transformative work that would blow the owner's socks of, even if the same quality parts were used in the rebuild. Then, on top of the engineering improvements, parts are upgraded to to the same quality parts as a standard kit. The first is like a better recipe. The second is like better ingredients. Better ingredients won't improve a bad dish. But once you have a better recipe, you can still make the most of it by using the best ingredients you can afford.
No not a moron it's the same reason why some engineers insist that cables all sound the same. Everyone's hearing ability and experience at listening differs, don't worry although I would have expected most people to hear the upgraded ones sounded brighter with more details
Glad you said it... and yes you are.
Just lacking hearing capacity...it's audible with or without headphones, a clear difference, and I'm not a young guy anymore.
Great video. I started this video thinking this was going to be a I hate Danny Ritchie video and everything he stands for. I was very pleasantly surprised that this was an honest video examining Danny's upgrades to a stock speaker. Parts matter, tube connectors matter and wires matter. Some of the upgrades may be very noticeable and others may be very subtle. I believe Danny and GR Research are the real deal. He strives to make things better for his customers and is a pretty honest guy. I recently sent them an e-mail asking about upgrades to my Martin Logan 60 XTI speakers, which I really like. They promptly replied and told me they had nothing for me and my ML speakers. They did NOT just try to sell me something. Certainly I could substitute some higher quality parts, but currently it is under study. This meant a lot to me. Keep up the good honest work here on this page. Bob
Ron. Nice work on the video. Just ordered a pair of X-LS Encores. I love the sound clips that you play. Are they listed anywhere?
I came to the same conclusion with B for the first sample, and A for the second sample. The sound stage seemed to be more open, and have more space around it. I'd like to know the names of the tracks, there were a couple I'd like to dip into more.
I listened through a set of xls encores (no headphones) it is really easy to hear the difference, the difference I heard on all of them was the same “ the silent background” and a bit sharper
I have excellent hearing I could hear the difference, in both examples. The first example was much easier to hear than the second. I imagine the examples are more pronounced in real life and would substantiate the cost of the upgrades and over time pay for itself. I can also see where some folks may rather upgrade the entire speaker. It would be awesome to hear his speakers in, an A, and B test against some top-selling speakers within the price range would be a great start.
Then getting his speakers out of 3-4 showrooms across the country would be the next best thing. He could start locally in Texas with Austin, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Lots of audiophiles around ATX hint hint.
Can someone tell me what the music was ie title and CD or Vinyl. I loved the music but only listened to it on a phone. I do, however, have (to my mind) a lovely 7.1 system with Denon 4311 and JBL speakers (ND310ii x 2 and the rest including centre, all Jbl 10inch speakers. These are xomplimented with 2 x JBL 12inch subwoofers. At my age, 75, I dont get to hear it all anymore and derive most of my pleasure with the sound moving around me. Upgrading for me is somewhat irrelevant. I would however very much like to have those music details if possible. Thanks guys n gals, tony
He really should do sound clips, he did one not too long ago on a speaker, can't remember what it was but even over TH-cam it was noticeable. The tone was better. These weird harsh things that many speakers do and so did these, that was gone after the crossover redesign. I'm sure not every project turns out like that but still, it seems like it would drive sales, I thought it was a big improvement
This is honestly the first time the differences in your recordings were subtle to the point of... yup, there is a difference but I really couldn't articulate with a couple of listens which one I preferred. This is all subjective of course. I listened to the following before listening to the reveal section of the video. I listened to them first with buds pro 2 and Arias through my iPad M1. Not hearing anything but a tiny difference, I switched to my CPU rig which is hd6xx, d1se dac, and 789 THX amp. Still barely picking up anything I tried the Arias on the CPU rig and again nothing. Normally I can pick out clear differences in your gear/room demos. Sorry, not picking up what you are throwing down in this one Ron.
I can recognize your NLP technique. I own some speakers designed by Danny. I'm a devotee of his designs. Great channel. Thanks.
Would you recommend the GResearch upgrades for the Cornwall IVs?
Yes absolutely
I bought the Dynaudio SPecial 40 upgrade kit. It was easy for a novice to implement and the improvement in transparency was remarkable. His products are for real. Also bought the Magnepan 1.7i kit but was unable to install it as that speaker is hard to work on.
Maybe I'm just a cheap date, but I honestly liked the stock Wharfedale's better. Sounded brighter to my ears. The Behringers were a toss up. Thought I heard more transients on the upgraded one, but that could be my imagination.
Actually the opposite is true. The Wharfedales were much clearer and less muddy than the stick version. Your system is not correct for discerning differences here.
My conclusion also.
Given the audio goes through a room, a mic, youtube, headphones and subjective views, all we can really say from the test is whether we heard a difference. I thought that a midrange dip in stock Wharfedale was much improved by the kit, but it could be that it corrected for the janky frequency response of my headphones. You might hear that as less treble (brightness) if you're hearing that relative to the midrange, like if you had plenty of midrange already in the stock version, so maybe different perspectives of the same thing.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xtHe prefers the standard Whardales. And u blame his kit LOL
Interesting. I have to admit that I preferred Wharfedale stock speaker over Danny's upgrade.
Like your choice of test tracks. Anybody know what they are?
I think the best was the Magnepan upgrade. I really appreciated the upgraded dynamics. I change the speaker sets out now and then just to appreciate the differences. Right now the Cornwall’s are in. I just seem to enjoy the music more when they are in the main listening room. That and they take up a lot of room in the storage closet. 🤷♂️
I could easily hear the difference on my TV speakers. I love Danny's videos and appreciate what he does to educate people.
Couldn't agree more with Danny's service, Ron. I got into a minor quibble with a guy on a Discord forum once about Danny and his service where the guy said "I could take this guy more seriously if he actually listened to the speakers that come in for his service." That right there told me he has no idea what Danny's service is at all or what the goal of his service aims to accomplish. Any competent speaker designer from Andrew Jones to Sean at Zu Audio to John Devore, aims to make a speaker that has a relatively well behaved, fairly flat frequency response and a fairly well behaved impedance curve. Sure, designers need to meet a price point in doing so most good designers (arguably) do the best they can with what they have to work with to create a speaker that measures respectably and that again means a fairly flat frequency response and impedance curve. But we have seen time and time again that the measured performance of many loudspeakers is less than ideal. So, when Danny brings in a speaker his aim is to take measurements and correct the faults in the speaker's measured performance, to bring it more into a relatively well behaved, flat frequency response, better impedance curve performance if possible, reduce cabinet resonances and to reduce measured stored energy. He makes decisions on how he can improve those measurements through proper parts values and evaluates cabinet resonances to meet those goals. He knows that parts quality matters as well, particularly in terms of resolution, and so he uses better parts to get better gains in those areas. If you understand that the goal of any speaker design is to create a good measuring speaker then you understand why Danny doesn't need to listen to the speaker before or after his service. Danny fixes the measured performance of speaker designs that failed to measure well in the first place. This isn't about voicing. We are talking about measured performance. No competent loudspeaker designer sets out to design a speaker that has very poor measured performance.
Your paragraph tells me you're a fan boy and any said about this man will instantly upset you lol, the dude sells overpriced components that only slightly raise the quality 😂
@@AndrewB23 You can buy the components for a parts upgrade anywhere. The top end things do have really reduced bang for the buck. But he's a drag racer on the weekends. Paying a lot for a hair better performance is absolutely his thing. It's not mine. I don't race cars either. Only idiots post that they're laughing at their own jokes.
@@AndrewB23 actually this tells me you get bothered by anyone praising Danny. Let me guess, you have a vintage pioneer or Marantz receiver with Cerwin Vega speakers. I’d be willing to bet you you belong to the Audio Science Review cult.
It's weird you mention Zu Audio and flat frequency responses in the same sentence. Those things are an absolute mess every time they're measured.
@@AndrewB23 His comment is exactly how speaker designers go about their work. And you can goodle them discussing it. The precision components are both repeatable (as opposed to a cascade of margins of error) and they make sure the signal isn't smeared by stored energy etc.. It's not magic, and it seems worth it to. lot of people.
With my TV speakers, no. But playing through my Q Acoustics 3050i and Myryad MA240 amp made a difference in mids and higher frequency, most definitely.
Have you posted a review of the Behriger's? I have had a pair for the better part of 20 years both in the studio and in my home. While I do not believe that they stand up to my Tannoy System 12's or my recent purchase of Adam S3V's, I do think they are a better choice than the seemingly studio standard of Yamaha NS10's. Would love to hear your thoughts on the Behriger's.
1st speaker 1st song prefer A for smoother highs, 2nd speakers sound same to me. Maybe will be good idea to provide uncompressed samples for download, (but maybe only actual listening will show the differences)
The only thing I agree with GR Research is using higher quality parts for better sound. His pursuit of the flattest frequency response often leads to dull or bright speakers. I have heard his modified speakers on 3 separate occasions. The mods made it sound different not better or worse than the original. Achieving flat frequency response isn’t hard to do, but making a good sounding speaker with a relative flat response is difficult. In my 40+ years in high end audio, most of the top 10 speakers of all time didn’t have ruler flat frequency response. Actually some had frequency grossly deviating from flat like the Apogee Duetta. Tbh, I don’t think he actually listens to most of his speaker mods before and after.
@@roybatty- I won’t be surprised if I get attacked for my response. Too many people drank the GR kool aid and act like cult members. I actually bought one of GR Research 2 way speakers. They are good for the money, but I don’t agree with his way of modding speakers. It would be interesting to see how another manufacturer’s speakers would sound with his better crossover parts without changing the crossover values versus his mods that changed the cross over values using his parts to flatten the frequency response.
@@JohnLee-db9zt It's not kool-aid, but you're drinking soiled toilet water.
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt Why is that?
Hey, I shot a video just for guys like you: th-cam.com/video/Z0hXuEyNwh0/w-d-xo.htmlsi=FOvIqS37V7cRqwQN
@@JohnLee-db9zt Let us know what results you get!
Great video on the first speaker I picked example B
On the second test I didn’t hear the difference.
Thanks
Great video Ron, congratulations! I've heard the difference right on the first music on the Diamond's, the buzz is there, no doubt about it. The second one also got it, but for me not so different as on the first speakers.
Is there any benefit in upgrading these speakers when I have age related hearing loss?
Well that is confirming what i thought of these upgrades, real but would prefer buy a speaker that i don't have to spend money on top of it to make it sound great ^^. Great useful video ! (my decision is also because i'm in france, would have been in US maybe the decision would be different)
What speakers would you recommend when I am unable to place speakers more than 7-8 inches away from the rear wall
To me the second clips (B) sounded better than (A), but much more so with the Wharfedales. IMO the upgrades are not really worth it. The manufacturer warranty is voided and the GR-Research components do not come with a warranty. Maybe his kits are the way to go.
Thank you, I am planning to have Danny help me on a pair of B&W speakers that I love how they look and match my setup visually but I know those speaker can do better. Wish me luck! BTW parts does not matter, you can build a plastic engine and put it in a car. Same thing exactly with everything. You don't make precise cuts with a chainsaw...
I won!
Differences are very noticeable on both. More on the first one.
Danny and GS Research are doing a great job. We need more people with purpose and passionate for what they do. Thank you all.
My thoughts are, the iron in some parts changes the sound electrically, we just need to measure and specify that, the addition to the Thiele Small parameters would be, Fe. Fe would be the ferrous change, as we haven't measured this yet we can't give a scale.
I don't know the exact model of mic you held up at the beginning. But it looks like an RTA Mic. Would be nice to do a cross channel Binaural recording with SM57's or 58's. Or even a better pair then those. Just a thought.
Good on you, Ron for doing this. This industry is mostly populated by males with all of the testosterone issues that come along with that so opinions are very strongly held. That being said I’m a fan of Danny’s upgrades having done one and I don’t think they are overpriced for the value you get.
Warfdale was very easy for me to decent the difference. Beringer was a smaller difference. As usual. Great work.
I couldn't hear a difference over TH-cam, but I'd love hear the comparison in person! I think the upgrades would be an improvement. Now if only I could my Hearing upgraded!!! Great Review Ron! 👍👍👍
try forcing it to 4k.
I've been in the process for a few years to upgrade my speakers, but as always, i want to make an informed decision.
First i wanted the Wharfedale Evo 4.4 , but looking at Danny's video saying their xrossovers and cabinet left much to wish for,
i kind of put those plans in a cooler. Then i started to get *really* interested in Polk R700 which are killing everything in their priceless
and you don't really need a sub to match those speakers ... and they're affordable .... so they're very high on my buy next list.
However.. i've always liked building my own speakers. I built A LOT of speakers on commision when i was younger, and i was looking into building a pair of backloaded horns using a pair of Lowther PM2A - however before actually spending 500€ on 2 Lowther elements, i want to hear how they actually sound in person, in a backloaded horn..
So.. knowing the quality of Danny's work, my primary plan in the X-Statik with the improved filters, but i'm not an electronic wizz so making those filters by myself - i'm pretty sure i'd FK something up and burn something. I would also love to buy the Bully, but they're WAY above my pricepoint @ 4000€.
I agree. And im using samsung buds over bluetooth. Big difference. Much improved
You should make an engineering showdown. Hire four engineers to design a crossover. It must meet the two driver specifications and cabinet. The mathematics are written on the design. They have the ratings and appropriate tolerance levels for the parts to be selected. Do a test with cheap or average parts and then follow up with a test with higher quality parts. It would be interesting to see if the designs hold up based on design originality with cheap and expensive parts (for different designs).
The higher quality parts made a difference with hearing definition and assertedness to the tones and notes when played back. The old crossover sounds generalized and soft with no peaks - highs and lows - to the instruments and transitions between melody and chorus and different instruments. I could tell a difference between the two when each one was but would not care if I was in the club walking around but definitely can hear the difference noticeably - it makes the difference at home getting the nuances and definition for more of a fast paced tempo and enjoyable experience.
I can hear a distinctive difference. The stock speakers sound more accurate.
On the first run, I preferred Speaker B's lower end. On the second set, I didnt hear an upgrade on B and just moved on - I wasnt using headphones or anything good to listen anyway so didnt want to force it.
Danny's upgrades are great. I have KLH Model 5s. He has only sold a few upgrades of that speaker. In this rare case, I have been sitting on the fence, but I am quite sure Danny and Hobbes are doing great work that is hearable. Do you have an opinion on this particular case?
His better Electrical "quality" X-over componets may sometimes be audibly detectable but his ridiculous iron-steel speaker Terminals sonic ear "allergy" is flippin insanely crazy.....Metallic Terminals of any typical fractional electrical resistance have no audible sound effects....
Even listening on my Bluetooth Sennheisers on the Wharfedale it was night and day difference. On the second demo with the Beringer the difference was much harder to catch.
We're talking of subtle differences, and I agree, but I recognised a fairly clear difference between example a and example b.
In the first run example b was definitevely better than example b, in the second run the difference was less, but again example a (the modifed one) was better than example b.
In the first set of example, it was easy to hear that option B was more open, brighter. I preferred option A in all cases. B felt like it had an EQ on it, and brightening things up isnt always better. A sounded more charming to my subjective ear.
In the second example it was much harder to hear a difference. To me, B sounded tighter in the low mids. I'm honestly not sure which was "better" - A was more relaxing to listen to, but maybe B had a touch more detail in the mids and low mids?
I'm 40 years as a pro studio musician and composer, and that includes a lot of audio engineering. My main monitors are Genelec S30Cs which are amazing speakers - 3 way, internally tri-ampd with ribbon tweeters, so my ears are pretty experienced. I listened to these clips on my crap laptop speakers, and in the first clip it was very easy to hear. The second clip was much more difficult to discriminate between the two. I think maybe the stock Behringer was distorting just a tiny bit more than the upgrade, that may account for the "compression" I heard in the lower mids?
Hi NRD: Am I taking crazy pills? I can definitely hear a difference between A an B. In the first track the vocals are wider in sound stage and thinner in impact. In B the vocals are centerlocked and therefore have more body and presence. The same applies to the guitar. On the second track the cello has more body. As a result this might cause the sound to sound like like its coming more from an inky black background. I have only listened to the tracks and typing this comment now, so let's see what happens by the end of the video.
I preferred Speaker B on Wharfdale! Bang on, this upgrade is noticeable and based on my ears, worth it.