Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 18, 2009, 05:41:37 PM
Before we get into any of the technical stuff, lets just have a look at the cabs themselves...
They are very similar in size, and weight. Build quality on both cabs is very good. However, the grill on the QRX212 is much more solid. When I was picking the cabs up with the grills against my chest, the U15's would flex, while the QRX would stay solid. The foam backing on the QRX also makes for a much cleaner look.
The both weigh pretty much the same, and are easy to handle. The U15 is shorter, fatter and deeper then the QRX212.
You guys can check out the specs for either cab if you'd like:
http://www.electrovoice.com/products/193.html
http://www.yorkville.com/products.asp?type=29&cat=38& ;id=254
SMAART
The tests were, for the most part, very unscientific and I relied on my ears, and a few of my buddies for most of the results. The cabs were run passive, as I did not want to get into biamping them. The setup consisted of:
1 macbook computer for playback/smaart
1 Yamaha MG10 mixer for the reference mic/playback
1 Crown XS1200 for power
I later added in a dbx DR260(only DSP I had laying around) for some EQ stuff.
First up, I took some SMAART measurements outside to see what the speakers raw response looked like. I had no HFP's in place and no EQ at all for these measurements.
I started with a ground plane setup, but I was getting a lot of false readings in the low mid sections, thanks to the ground coupling. I wanted to get the cabs more into free space so we could really see what their response looked like, so I settled for an on axis measurement, with the cabs 22" off the ground:
Here's what SMAART said:
White = QRX212
Orange = U15
Listening test:
For the listening test, I wanted to make sure everything was matched, so one cab didn't get an unfair advantage. I had the QRX212 on channel 1 of the XS1200, and the U15 on channel 2. The MG10 was plugged straight into the amp.
I played pink noise and brought the U15 up so it was doing 102dBC @ 1m. I panned over to the QRX212, and didn't have to touch a thing. I was surprised to see that it was 102dBC @ 1m without touching anything. On paper, the EV cab has a 3dB advantage over the U15, but with the gains wide open on both amp channels, the cabs were the exact same level right off the bat. So, either the U15 is more efficient then Yorkville says, or the QRX is a little less.
Anyway, on to listening. Our track of choice was: Donald Fagen: Ruby Ruby, along with a few others later on...
With no EQ on either box, there were some pretty drastic differences between the 2. We all agreed that the U15 had much better extended top end with no EQ, but it was missing some of the meat of the mid range. You could say that the U15 had more of a "hi fi" sound. The QRX212 lacked the top end sparkle that the U15 had.
The QRX was more mid range heavy, and that 5k peak SMAART showed was very apparent with music. The QRX also had a lot more low mids, and lows. The U15 seemed to disappear below 80hz, while the QRX212 was solid much lower.
I also noticed that the QRX212 had a much more detailed mid range. The pianos, cellos, snare/toms and guitars sounded a lot better on the QRX cabs. The cymbals, and vocals sounded better on the U15s(thanks to that extended top end). But, the U15 just seemed to have a hole in the mid range, not giving the cab any bite, or cut.
So, I decided to throw the DR260 into the mix. I put a 70hz, 18dB BW HPF on both cabs, and did some EQ on the EV's. I did 2 simple things. A 6dB cut @ 4.5k, and a 12dB/oct hi-shelf @ 10k. What a difference! The top end everyone wanted was now there on the EV's, and the 5k bite was gone. The U15 was the early leader, but with 2 little EQ changes, everyone started to like the QRX212 a lot more. It still didn't have an ultra sparkly high end, but it was there. The QRX212 had a lot "fuller" sound to it that didn't hurt my ears at all, while the U15 was still missing some lower mids, and the HF was actually getting painful as we cranked it.
I wanted to see what these cabs could do, so it was time to let them loose. I had no limiters in place, just the 70hz HPF, and those 2 EQ cuts on the EV. I cranked the music up until the clip light started to tickle on the amp. The QRX212 stayed fairly smooth, and very full sounding. It was very impressive. Those 12's had a fair amount of ass to them. They were able to maintain 117dBC @ 12' when the amp started to run out of gas.
Next up, was the U15. Again we cranked it up, but I had to turn it right down. OUCH! The HF on those cabs got painful quick! That added sparkle that sounded nice at lower levels really started to hurt at higher levels. I had to put 2 filters on the MF/HF to smooth it out. The first was a 4dB cut @ 2.5k, and another wide 3dB cut 6.3k. Ok, so we turn it up again. Much better, but still a little harsh. It seems as if the 1" compression driver is not loving it at all. I made another cut at 8K, and it seemed to help. What surprised me though, is that the U15 was also to maintain 117dBC @ 12' when the amp started to run out of gas. It just wasn't as smooth as the QRX212.
I was out of amp power, and time. So, we called it a day and picked the winner. Myself and one other guy picked the QRX212, while the other guy picked the U15. I wish I would have had time to biamp the cabs and really give them a good beating, but that will have to wait for another day...
So, to sum it up:
EV QRX212:
-More detailed mid range
-Good top end with a little EQ
-Fuller sounding
-More "cut," better for rock and roll
Yorkville U15:
-Better top end
-More sparkle
-Missing the midrange meat
Both cabs sound fine, and it really comes down to personal preference. I will say, that I know from live usage the EV cabs will get louder, and sound better with bands(when you push them). It just really depends on what you're looking for in a speaker.
Evan
Post by: Tom Manchester on March 18, 2009, 06:03:40 PM
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 18, 2009, 09:24:33 PM
You found out a lot of what I expected. They both have their pros and cons. They both get loud, which I found to be the case with the U15's. But I think the QRx212's having the dual 12" give it that edge in SPL you like!
I will have to mess with those DSP settings that you used to help to top end of the U15 and refine them a little more! I haven't been able to get outside here yet in Cleveland and it is finally getting nice so hopefully can get outside and Smaart the U15 and mess with EQ besides the basics I use.
The other thing that is interesting in your Smaart measurement for th U15 there isn't the characteristic 190hz bump that is usually at least 5dB above sensitivity. Interesting
Out of curiosity, was this a U15 made after April 2007 when they changed the crossover design, because I know that is when you notice the horn get really harsh, when you started using Matt Viv's handicapped Cabs, pre-2007 cabs.
Thanks!
Phil
Post by: Bob Kenton on March 18, 2009, 10:30:47 PM
Post by: Matt Vivlamore on March 18, 2009, 11:03:56 PM
| Phil Lewandowski wrote on Wed, 18 March 2009 21:24 |
Very Nice Review Evan You found out a lot of what I expected. They both have their pros and cons. They both get loud, which I found to be the case with the U15's. But I think the QRx212's having the dual 12" give it that edge in SPL you like! I will have to mess with those DSP settings that you used to help to top end of the U15 and refine them a little more! I haven't been able to get outside here yet in Cleveland and it is finally getting nice so hopefully can get outside and Smaart the U15 and mess with EQ besides the basics I use. The other thing that is interesting in your Smaart measurement for th U15 there isn't the characteristic 190hz bump that is usually at least 5dB above sensitivity. Interesting Out of curiosity, was this a U15 made after April 2007 when they changed the crossover design, because I know that is when you notice the horn get really harsh, when you started using Matt Viv's handicapped Cabs, pre-2007 cabs. Thanks! Phil |
Phil the cabs in the Test are the U15v2 (per say)...
From Evan's review, I wonder if Yorkville built a different crossover network or 1" driver. I had to take out a good bit around 3.5k.
But to my knowledge, my U15v1 where in fine/complete condition. You are thinking about Eric's v1 that Evan original reported the Horn Break-up noise.
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 19, 2009, 08:20:18 AM
| Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 18 March 2009 23:03 | ||
Phil the cabs in the Test are the U15v2 (per say)... But to my knowledge, my U15v1 where in fine/complete condition. You are thinking about Eric's v1 that Evan original reported the Horn Break-up noise. |
Ah, Gotcha, I apologize for the misunderstanding on whose U15 had the broken leads.
| Matt Vivlamore wrote on Wed, 18 March 2009 23:03 |
From Evan's review, I wonder if Yorkville built a different crossover network or 1" driver. I had to take out a good bit around 3.5k. |
Are you thinking that the U15's Evan tested are different in the HF driver region for some reason than yours?
Take Care!
Phil
Post by: Matt Vivlamore on March 19, 2009, 10:41:04 AM
| Phil Lewandowski wrote on Thu, 19 March 2009 08:20 | ||
Are you thinking that the U15's Evan tested are different in the HF driver region for some reason than yours? Take Care! Phil |
With the EQ cuts Evan is suggesting is different that where I had the cuts. It might be the same HF driver, but I have read somewhere it the v2's come with a different crossover set-up. I am not sure if it is just location or if they reworked them a little bit.
No problem getting us confused. After Eric commented on his I check mine and they looked OK.
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 20, 2009, 11:10:06 AM
(BTW, This is comparing a U15 with Acoustic Foam installed and one without)
But eh Overall response, ignoring the high end where the coherence goes to pieces is the kind that I have usually gotten.
So I was very surprised to see the response you got, since you didn't use the UP15 processor.
Could part of it be from the mic being off the ground, but I am guessing you had good coherence through that reason? I am just thinking about that because whenever I take measurements with the mic off the ground I always get I dip down in the low-mids based on how high I am off the ground.
Take Care!
Phil
Post by: Evan Kirkendall on March 20, 2009, 12:48:16 PM
That's what my graph looked like on the ground plane. There's a bunch of low mid coupling going on, and you basically get the response of 2 boxes on the ground plane. Hence why I wanted to get more of a free space response.
My coherence was no less then 50% anywhere on both measurements.
Evan
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 20, 2009, 01:04:05 PM
| Evan Kirkendall wrote on Fri, 20 March 2009 12:48 |
Phil, That's what my graph looked like on the ground plane. There's a bunch of low mid coupling going on, and you basically get the response of 2 boxes on the ground plane. Hence why I wanted to get more of a free space response. My coherence was no less then 50% anywhere on both measurements. Evan |
Gotcha, that makes sense.
Post by: Adam Kane on March 24, 2009, 09:42:57 PM
I don't recall if Yorkville has any info on their site as to what exactly the processor does, although I'm sure you could figure it out after spending some time analyzing one.
I enjoyed your comments on the QRX212 as I've not used these before. Thanks for the real-world info.
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 24, 2009, 09:48:12 PM
| Adam Kane wrote on Tue, 24 March 2009 21:42 |
Did you run the U15's with or without their processor? Based on first hand experience with these speakers (several installs), they smooth out dramatically in the upper end and seem to have more output below 80hz or so without a significant decrease in headroom, when used with their proprietary processor (U15P) I don't recall if Yorkville has any info on their site as to what exactly the processor does, although I'm sure you could figure it out after spending some time analyzing one. I enjoyed your comments on the QRX212 as I've not used these before. Thanks for the real-world info. |
In full range mode. The processor really just gets rid of the 190hz bump and brings up the low end.
But there was someone on here that noticed a big difference besides just what it seemed it would do, but who knows!
Maybe just a mind thing, but not gonna lie the processor helps.
Take Care!
Phil
Post by: Adam Kane on March 24, 2009, 10:13:29 PM
When the processor came in, I went right down and racked it up. I played the same music I played without the processor and it sounded like a completely different system. Plenty of low end, and the high-end didn't get abrasive when played loudly. The low mids (say 250-400ish) all the sudden had a nice presence without muddying things up. All this without a single change in the other DSP in the system.
Maybe it is a mind thing. I wish I had performed actual measurements both before and after the processor was wired in. I have no proof as to why, but they definitely sound better with the processor.
Post by: Phil Lewandowski on March 24, 2009, 10:50:52 PM
| Adam Kane wrote on Tue, 24 March 2009 22:13 |
I'm all but positive it does something up high. We had an install with a couple hangs of these. The processor was back-ordered for a few days. I decided to fire them up w/o the processor (mainly just to make sure everything was wired correctly) and noticed they were lacking in the low end (no subs in this system) and when pushed a little harder, the 4-5k range seemed to get out of hand. I also noticed the hole in the lower mids that Evan mentioned. Not at all what I expected. When the processor came in, I went right down and racked it up. I played the same music I played without the processor and it sounded like a completely different system. Plenty of low end, and the high-end didn't get abrasive when played loudly. The low mids (say 250-400ish) all the sudden had a nice presence without muddying things up. All this without a single change in the other DSP in the system. Maybe it is a mind thing. I wish I had performed actual measurements both before and after the processor was wired in. I have no proof as to why, but they definitely sound better with the processor. |
I do have Smaart measurements of the processor in full range mode and is actually published in the UP15 manual. I will try and dig it up for you.
Found it:
http://i717.photobucket.com/albums/ww173/beatmasterphil/UP15 Full-RangeSmaart.jpg
That is full-range transfer function, bi-amp is similar except with active crossover.
So as you see it is just both our minds, but it sure does sound better, and that's what counts right!
Take Care!
Phil
Post by: Richard Stringer on October 27, 2010, 06:15:30 AM