LSR 305 and 308 discontinued.............read below

[amirm]

Keep us posted as to how you like it.

 

[JustIntonation]

Funny. I was trying my little brother's LSR305 and googling the mkii version and Audiosciencereview turned up yet again
For what it's worth, the LSR305 (first version) is not that great a speaker. Certainly not high end. It has many faults.
I've ordered the LSR305p mkii which should arrive tomorrow and will do a comparison for my little brother and will share that one here as well. But I hope it's quite a bit better than the first version otherwise they're both going back, even for the money (would be better off with a second hand passive by for instance B&W and cheap class D amp for the same money).

But so far without comparison to version 2, the version one LSR305 has the following faults:
- Bass is muddy and undefined. Sure I've heard far worse but this is not very good either.. Furthermore, the bass compresses quite a bit and has what i think sounds to me like too high harmonic distortion at moderate listening levels, it is somewhat cleaner at very low listening levels. It is certainly not dynamic sounding.
- The box construction and baffle construction are both shabby. You can clearly hear box resonances / hollowness when knocking on the side (underdamped inside and too thin or bad material walls?) and this seems to be audible in the music as well, perhaps partly explains the bad bass and mids. This is not comparible to quality studio nearfields which sound dead as a brick when you knock on the side. The front baffle is made from some sort of plastic it seems and you can just hear they left empty the space between this plastic baffle and the square box behind it, it has resonances in there.
- The mids are certainly not very resolving, no real depth can be heard, its a bit smeared and undefined.
- Treble is not that great either. Wouldn't call them detailed at all. Not a great treble driver, very bad transients and not that even. The waveguide thing is a joke at this size, you need much bigger size to have a good waveguide. I detected baffle edge diffraction on the top I think as well. Placing books on top of the speakers flush with the speaker baffle did some good too lessen this and gave more even upper mids.
Further hint that the waveguide is not doing that much is that the sweetspot is very small and the speakers sound dark overall due to the chubby bass, resonances and lacking transient response.
Have some further issues, the treble and bass switches degrade the sound when used, much better to use EQ on the computer or another way. edit: and btw their amp is also noisy, white noise clearly audible at 60cm and no way to turn this down other than to shut the speaker off (or turn the input volume to 0 which otherwise has no effect the noise is equally loud at input volume 1 as it is at input volume 10/max).

Good points: They're dirt cheap, other speakers in this price category have huge faults of their own and usually sound less musical. Another good point is that when set up properly they are fairly balanced frequency wise, not purposefully hyped on top etc.

My listening was at my bothers house in various positions on stands and at my own house which has a well damped room of about 40m2 with 4m high ceilings where I set up the LSR305 in nearfield position on stands with distance about 60cm ears to speakers and treble pointed directly at my ears.
I've heard plenty of nearfields in my life from Klein+Hummel, Adam, Geithain, PMC, etc. And know what they can sound like when properly set up.

 

[FrantzM]

<snip>
I've heard plenty of nearfields in my life from Klein+Hummel, Adam, Geithain, PMC, etc. And know what they can sound like when properly set up.

All that I snip-ed are valid points. I am not one to advocate the "Price Point" issue but here we are comparing a dirt-cheap, entry-level speaker with some that are several times its price. A better comparison would have been with the JBL "7" series. Don't they (JBL) have a "4" series?

 

[mshenay]

Forgive the less than stellar quality

Non the less I did get the LSR 305 MK ii's up an running. I've got them on a set of RAB Audio Studio Monitor Isolators with those el-Cheapo stands you see.

Works fine, some one mentioned above that they felt the Bass on the MK 1 or original 305s was flabby, I have to say I don't feel these have that issue. Compared to my LSR 308s they are noticeable more textured/controlled but they don't reach down as deep.

I will say the over detail, imaging and technical response isn't amazing. They are at best equivalent to something like my AKG K701, tonally I find them to be spectacular [with the -2 dB cut on the top end]

In terms of the overall system, I use a Shanling M3S as my digital Transport and I feed that into a Singxer X1 usb to Coax converter which then feeds into my JDS Labs EL Dac and then into the OL Switcher Preamp and finally into my Subjective 3 Analog EQ. Though I keep the EQ set to bypass when I'm listening. My wife likes to tinker with the EQ a little though for her listening.

So overall given what I paid I think it's worth while. But keep in mind my room's not treated and I've got very tall ceilings so I can't say how much better these could be in a more optimized space. But given the price I'm content. I actually just did some listening with the iFi Audio xDSD [Blu-Tooth to my Cell then analog into the speaker system] and I felt these did an excellent job at accurately reflecting the slight changes in presentation between the xDSD and some other components. So while the detail and overall technicality isn't by ANY MEANS game changing, tonally they are quite good.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Good points: They're dirt cheap, other speakers in this price category have huge faults of their own and usually sound less musical. Another good point is that when set up properly they are fairly balanced frequency wise, not purposefully hyped on top etc.

I suppose I would ask what is a better choice for $300/pr in powered active speakers? Or even $400/pr?

I've not found the EQ switches to be a problem degrading sound.

I think the bass is a weak point, but in a 5 inch woofer in such an inexpensive box you are lucky to have any. Which is why I think for anything other than near field use one is smart to add a subwoofer. It makes the bass better, and relieves the 5 incher so it can work better over its range of frequencies.

The balanced frequency response is why I think it is a good speaker in absolute terms and stupendously so at $300/pr. Plenty of high end speakers have other advantages and get that wrong. Sometimes thrillingly so, but still it isn't hifi.

 

[JustIntonation]

I suppose I would ask what is a better choice for $300/pr in powered active speakers? Or even $400/pr?

I've not found the EQ switches to be a problem degrading sound.

I think the bass is a weak point, but in a 5 inch woofer in such an inexpensive box you are lucky to have any. Which is why I think for anything other than near field use one is smart to add a subwoofer. It makes the bass better, and relieves the 5 incher so it can work better over its range of frequencies.

The balanced frequency response is why I think it is a good speaker in absolute terms and stupendously so at $300/pr. Plenty of high end speakers have other advantages and get that wrong. Sometimes thrillingly so, but still it isn't hifi.

Ah no, I don't know a better choice for $300/pr in active speakers. (though I wouldn't be surprised if it's there, perhaps from Edifier, and in Europe the Focal Alpha 50 is about the same price as the 305p mkII though I haven't heard it)
But what got me are the rave reviews of how this is "high end" etc. And just saying that by listening to the LSR305 (first version) is that it doesn't cut it for me to be called high end. Too many errors that are just a bit too colouring for me.

Though perhaps the mkII fixes most of these enough to make me like them! I'm still having some hope even though most people seem to say they sound about the same (but then again those same people said the first version sounds steller which I don't agree with either so perhaps they don't have them set up correctly or in a bad room and don't have experienced ears etc)
I've been doing some more reading and it seems like the mkII has a different bass driver which doesn't compress as much, stays more centered and has lower distortion. That would be great. Also the treble driver has changed to one with ferro fluid and is stated to have better transient response and a more even response. And it seems the cabinet has changed to what could very well be thicker MDF, it is less deep as well in the mkII version.
Well funny enough all these changes could exactly hit most of the points I'm having troubles with Seems like JBL's designers have ears too.
So again maybe the mkII version is a considerable improvement to me. I'll know tomorrow
Oh and I found another thread where the cabinet resonances are measured and a fix is proposed for the worst of them by adding a cross-brace (which all of these cheap cabinets should have to begin with). Without it it is described and measured to ring like a bell. So it's not just my ears.. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/320206-jbl-lsr305-tweaking.html#post5375155

 

[mshenay]

Ah no, I don't know a better choice for $300/pr in active speakers. (though I wouldn't be surprised if it's there, perhaps from Edifier, and in Europe the Focal Alpha 50 is about the same price as the 305p mkII though I haven't heard it)
But what got me are the rave reviews of how this is "high end" etc. And just saying that by listening to the LSR305 (first version) is that it doesn't cut it for me to be called high end. Too many errors that are just a bit too colouring for me.

Though perhaps the mkII fixes most of these enough to make me like them! I'm still having some hope even though most people seem to say they sound about the same (but then again those same people said the first version sounds steller which I don't agree with either so perhaps they don't have them set up correctly or in a bad room and don't have experienced ears etc)
I've been doing some more reading and it seems like the mkII has a different bass driver which doesn't compress as much, stays more centered and has lower distortion. That would be great. Also the treble driver has changed to one with ferro fluid and is stated to have better transient response and a more even response. And it seems the cabinet has changed to what could very well be thicker MDF, it is less deep as well in the mkII version.
Well funny enough all these changes could exactly hit most of the points I'm having troubles with Seems like JBL's designers have ears too.
So again maybe the mkII version is a considerable improvement to me. I'll know tomorrow
Oh and I found another thread where the cabinet resonances are measured and a fix is proposed for the worst of them by adding a cross-brace (which all of these cheap cabinets should have to begin with). Without it it is described and measured to ring like a bell. So it's not just my ears.. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/320206-jbl-lsr305-tweaking.html#post5375155

I too feel that a lot of the feed back from the flaws of the 1st were addressed in the second. There was also MassDrop 30X that had some small tweaks.

Either way I wouldn't call the MKII's high end by any means. An I'm not really sure where/what you'd consider High End to be, an referencing something else I've heard I wouldn't consider the Maggi 1.7i's I heard in the past to be "high end" either.

As for the "what's better" in this price range question hopefully some one else has some feed back. N while I too would think that Focal would likely be a competitor you do have to acknowledge the sheer volume of options at this price point. So some relative listening experience will likely be of more help than speculation.

Emotiva actually has some speakers around this price point too, passive's though and from what I've heard in their Cinema Line I imagine they'd do alright compared to the 305 MKII's but again just speculation on my end

 

[oivavoi]

For nearfield applications, I would say that the Eve sc204 is many many levels above the LSR305 mk1 (haven’t heard the MK2). For just a bit more money. But bass extension and max spl is obviously limited. Hence near field - and ideally crossed over to a sub. SC205 is even better, but is more expensive.

Eve makes great speakers in general. I like the AMT tweeter, and I like that it doesn’t have a waveguide which can color the sound (for nearfield use the direct sound is much more important anyway).

 

[watchnerd]

For nearfield applications, I would say that the Eve sc204 is many many levels above the LSR305 mk1 (haven’t heard the MK2). For just a bit more money. But bass extension and max spl is obviously limited. Hence near field - and ideally crossed over to a sub. SC205 is even better, but is more expensive.

Eve makes great speakers in general. I like the AMT tweeter, and I like that it doesn’t have a waveguide which can color the sound (for nearfield use the direct sound is much more important anyway).

I almost bought the SC205s...ended up buying the LYD 5's instead, for basically the same price.

Both were pretty darn amazing for the size and, as you say, nearfield. Picking between the SC205 and LYD 5 was mostly about preferences, as opposed to overall quality.

 

[JustIntonation]

Well I get the rave reviews now..
I've set them up differently now in my living room near my small desk and with some space behind them / more freestanding and at a larger distance of about 1m to 1m20 and in a more live room they have hit a sweet spot which I think is related to the way they radiate the sound.
They sound great now. Not in a studio / critical listening way but in a big soundstage every sounds huge and great hifi way.
The errors I mentioned earlier are very hard to hear in this setting. The room sound glosses over these errors and they just work with the live room very well. Indeed a sound well above their price.
Here a picture of my quick setup. (all of a sudden I got the idea to do this based on the sound of the speakers and past experiences in different live rooms)

 

[jhaider]

I like the AMT tweeter, and I like that it doesn’t have a waveguide which can color the sound (for nearfield use the direct sound is much more important anyway).

Unless a driver is a naked levitating diaphragm, it has a waveguide. Every baffle is a waveguide. A baffle loads the driver down to a certain frequency, has a transition range, and constrains the driver's radiation.

Here's an example with good measurements: Ascend CBM-170 SE polar measurements from the Princeton 3D3A Lab (BACCH).
This speaker has a 6.5" woofer and 1" tweeter on a 9" wide, 12" tall flat waveguide. Here is the 360 degree polar map:

https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Dire...scend Acoustics CBM-170 SE H Contour Plot.png

Aside from the obvious problem (midrange dispersion disruption due to the bad crossover region DI match between woofer and tweeter), you can see that the flat waveguide does a very good job of constraining the tweeter's radiation to the forward hemisphere. Shrink the waveguide down to 4" wide, and you would see considerable rearwards radiation at the tweeter's low end.

Another big issue with flat waveguides is edge termination, because they send so much energy to the baffle edges. Sharp edges from baffle to sides are a lot cheaper to make than roundover or chamfer transitions. A more contoured waveguide sends less energy to the edges. This relative lack of energy makes an abrupt transition from baffle to side less problematic.

Best case is a contoured waveguide that transitions smoothly onto the baffle, and rounded or chamfered transitions between baffle and sides. All three of those are unlikely to happen at a budget. The best realistic case for a well priced speaker is a molded contoured tweeter waveguide, which is barely more expensive to make in quantity than a flat faceplate, in a standard sharp edged box.

 

[oivavoi]

Unless a driver is a naked levitating diaphragm, it has a waveguide. Every baffle is a waveguide. A baffle loads the driver down to a certain frequency, has a transition range, and constrains the driver's radiation.

Here's an example with good measurements: Ascend CBM-170 SE polar measurements from the Princeton 3D3A Lab (BACCH).
This speaker has a 6.5" woofer and 1" tweeter on a 9" wide, 12" tall flat waveguide. Here is the 360 degree polar map:


View attachment 15343
https://www.princeton.edu/3D3A/Directivity/Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE/images/Plots/Horizontal/Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE H Contour Plot.png

Aside from the obvious problem (midrange dispersion disruption due to the bad crossover region DI match between woofer and tweeter), you can see that the flat waveguide does a very good job of constraining the tweeter's radiation to the forward hemisphere. Shrink the waveguide down to 4" wide, and you would see considerable rearwards radiation at the tweeter's low end.

Another big issue with flat waveguides is edge termination, because they send so much energy to the baffle edges. Sharp edges from baffle to sides are a lot cheaper to make than roundover or chamfer transitions. A more contoured waveguide sends less energy to the edges. This relative lack of energy makes an abrupt transition from baffle to side less problematic.

Best case is a contoured waveguide that transitions smoothly onto the baffle, and rounded or chamfered transitions between baffle and sides. All three of those are unlikely to happen at a budget. The best realistic case for a well priced speaker is a molded contoured tweeter waveguide, which is barely more expensive to make in quantity than a flat faceplate, in a standard sharp edged box.

Thanks! Enlightening comments.

As with everything in speaker design, there might be trade-offs. There is no doubt that non-flat waveguides may improve the dispersion characteristics and the polars. At the same time, isn't it the case that what is commonly called a waveguide (i.e. not a flat baffle) does something with the soundwaves beyond controllring dispersion which a flat baffle does not? I'm thinking of HOMs etc, re: Geddes. One may discuss the audibility, but my understanding is that it's there, and that it's measurable (using the right measurements). On the other hand, THD probably becomes lower, because the drivers get an easier load. So I do think there's a trade-off.

Subjectively and anecdotally, I have had an increasing suspicion that waveguides do something to the sound that I don't find optimal for long-term listening, and that I prefer flat baffles, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the common sharp-edged variety.

 

[JustIntonation]

Thanks! Enlightening comments.

As with everything in speaker design, there might be trade-offs. There is no doubt that non-flat waveguides may improve the dispersion characteristics and the polars. At the same time, isn't it the case that what is commonly called a waveguide (i.e. not a flat baffle) does something with the soundwaves beyond controllring dispersion which a flat baffle does not? I'm thinking of HOMs etc, re: Geddes. One may discuss the audibility, but my understanding is that it's there, and that it's measurable (using the right measurements). On the other hand, THD probably becomes lower, because the drivers get an easier load. So I do think there's a trade-off.

Subjectively and anecdotally, I have had an increasing suspicion that waveguides do something to the sound that I don't find optimal for long-term listening, and that I prefer flat baffles, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the common sharp-edged variety.

As I understand it a waveguide does not give an increased dispersion in the highest treble as people often think but instead gives a more narrow dispersion in the mid and lower treble to better match the dispersion of the higher treble.
Also a waveguide needs size to do this, as I understand for a smooth dispersion characteristic untill the crossover it needs a lot more size and depth to fully do this which for instance the waveguide of the lsr305 does not give.
But in general, a waveguide makes a speaker darker (and more even) in its off axis radiation characteristic. Which is the thing you may not like?
Btw one other benefit of a waveguide is that it puts the treble driver back a bit which is good for getting it more time alligned with the mid driver.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Thanks! Enlightening comments.

As with everything in speaker design, there might be trade-offs. There is no doubt that non-flat waveguides may improve the dispersion characteristics and the polars. At the same time, isn't it the case that what is commonly called a waveguide (i.e. not a flat baffle) does something with the soundwaves beyond controllring dispersion which a flat baffle does not? I'm thinking of HOMs etc, re: Geddes. One may discuss the audibility, but my understanding is that it's there, and that it's measurable (using the right measurements). On the other hand, THD probably becomes lower, because the drivers get an easier load. So I do think there's a trade-off.

Subjectively and anecdotally, I have had an increasing suspicion that waveguides do something to the sound that I don't find optimal for long-term listening, and that I prefer flat baffles, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the common sharp-edged variety.

That's basically correct re: lower nonlinear distortion vs greater diffraction (inc. HOMs).***

This diffraction has proven difficult to measure, however, and although it theoretically must be occurring, I've looked for experimental evidence of it and have not been able to find it (not even Geddes has provided any experimental evidence of HOMs, for example).

There's also, to my knowledge, no experimental evidence of their audibility.

***It's not quite that simple, because there's also the question of diffraction caused by a flat baffle. To eliminate baffle-related diffraction in a direct radiating speaker, the baffle needs to be spherical or heavily rounded at the edges. I don't think it's a stretch to say that most direct-radiating tweeters are generating similar levels of diffraction to most waveguide-loaded tweeters.

No problem trusting your intuition that you prefer the sound of direct-radiating tweeters.

It's just that - without any experimental support - I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about why.

 

[oivavoi]

That's basically correct re: lower nonlinear distortion vs greater diffraction (inc. HOMs).***

This diffraction has proven difficult to measure, however, and although it theoretically must be occurring, I've looked for experimental evidence of it and have not been able to find it (not even Geddes has provided any experimental evidence of HOMs, for example).

There's also, to my knowledge, no experimental evidence of their audibility.

***It's not quite that simple, because there's also the question of diffraction caused by a flat baffle. To eliminate baffle-related diffraction in a direct radiating speaker, the baffle needs to be spherical or heavily rounded at the edges. I don't think it's a stretch to say that most direct-radiating tweeters are generating similar levels of diffraction to most waveguide-loaded tweeters.

No problem trusting your intuition that you prefer the sound of direct-radiating tweeters.

It's just that - without any experimental support - I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about why.

Regarding not jumping to conclusion - absolutely! In general, I don't regard my intuitive impressions as authoritative at all.

On HOMs, I was under the impression that it had been decisively measured... am I wrong on that? Bjørn Kolbrek lists the literature here: http://kolbrek.hoyttalerdesign.no/index.php/blag/28-higher-order-modes

Haven't read it though, only his summary. I think you are right that there haven't been done any studies on the audibility of HOMs, or regarding preference.

 

[andreasmaaan]

On HOMs, I was under the impression that it had been decisively measured... am I wrong on that? Bjørn Kolbrek lists the literature here: http://kolbrek.hoyttalerdesign.no/index.php/blag/28-higher-order-modes

Yeh, if you browse through all that material listed, you'll notice that all of it is theoretical, with the possible exception of this article.

I'm going to read it and get back to you on what the experimental findings were and what they might mean (as I'm interested myself - it's not a study I was previously aware of).

 

[JustIntonation]

Just received the 305p mkII and the difference is immediately apparent and very big.
This is a very good speaker for the price! My description of the first version is completely not applicable to the mkII.
The bass has tightened enormously and is dynamic and clean enough now, more even as well. And the treble, wel.. completely different far more detail and resolution and far more even.
The first version was not a studio speaker, this one is.

What still confuses me is how people can say they sound about the same. They definately do not.

 

[oivavoi]

Yeh, if you browse through all that material listed, you'll notice that all of it is theoretical, with the possible exception of this article.

I'm going to read it and get back to you on what the experimental findings were and what they might mean (as I'm interested myself - it's not a study I was previously aware of).

Cool! Thankful that you read it, so I don't have too The same guy also wrote this article, which seem to contain further measurements of different horns/waveguides: http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/browse.cfm?elib=13294

Just to be clear: I do realize that there are advantages to horns and/or contoured waveguides. I've heard some very large horn systems which have made a lasting impression on me, when it comes to dynamics, punch, etc. Have even been thinking of getting (big) horns myself. At the same time, my intuitive impression is that there are trade-offs. But as you say, this may be due to many different things!

 

[JustIntonation]

I'm joining the chorus.
Get this speaker now It is rediculously good. Just wow.
And if you have the first version sell it and get the mkII. I would not have kept the first version even though it costs only 200 euro for a pair here including stands. This mkII version I paid 358 euro for the pair and I would gladly pay twice or more.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Cool! Thankful that you read it, so I don't have too The same guy also wrote this article, which seem to contain further measurements of different horns/waveguides. http://www.aes.org/e-lib/online/browse.cfm?elib=13294

Just to be clear: I do realize that there are advantages to horns and/or contoured waveguides. I've heard some very large horn systems which have made a lasting impression on me, when it comes to dynamics, punch, etc. Have even been thinking of getting (big) horns myself. At the same time, my intuitive impression is that there are trade-offs. But as you say, this may be due to many different things!

Definitely I also don't have all the answers. More research needs to be done. Glad to have you draw my attention to those articles though.

One thing I haven't mentioned that is underlying my perspective here is that I've looked at a lot of cumulative spectral decay plots of horn-loaded compression drivers. I'm over-generalising here, but I've rarely seen specific evidence in the CSDs of anything that might be considered a HOM, nor have I found that CSDs for better-quality horn-loaded comp. drivers are less clean than direct-radiating tweeters in the frequencies we might expect to find HOMs.

I'll read that article too, looks interesting.