Yamaha NS-1000X response graphs, etc.

dnewma04

The Healer
The graphs actually fall in line with what I would have expected overall. Very flat response with just a very slight amount of presence in the midrange area. When I had mine, I tended to run the mids and tweets very slightly backed off from the center position to make them a bit more laid back sounding and this explain why. Overall, I'd say these are very impressive, if accurate and help explain why I found the NS-1000X to be one of the better sounding commercially available speakers I have run across. The woofer response is particularly good, IMO but the one thing that is lacking is the off axis response of the individual drivers, though. The one thing that was sort of dissappointing to me is that the tweeters response over the last octave is largely average looking. It makes me wonder what they would have sounded like with a top notch tweeter like a Hiquphon OWI or OWII and I also which I could see a waterfall plot, which I wouldn't be surprised to find wouldn't be their strong point.

Response on axis as well as 30 and 60 degrees off axis

NS1000X03060.jpg


Response with the adjustments at flat and +/- 3dB on the mids and tweets.

NS1000Xadjustedsettings.jpg


Response onaxis with individual driver rolloffs with the 500 and and 6000hz 12db crossover points.

NS1000Xcrossoverpoints.jpg


Polar response

NS1000Xpolar.jpg


Individual driver response graphs:

JA-3114 woofer with carbon fiber cone:

NS1000XJA-3114.jpg


JA-0803 Dome Mid:

NS1000XJA-0803.jpg


JA-0548 Dome Tweeter:

NS1000XJA-0548.jpg
 
Also, if anyone is interested, I found a digital copy of the manual for the NS-1000X in Japanese and will email to interested parties. Email me at my AK screen name at gmail and I will send it on.
 
Thanks for sharing those graphs. I found them to be very interesting to read.

When I had mine, I tended to run the mids and tweets very slightly backed off from the center position to make them a bit more laid back sounding and this explain why. Overall, I'd say these are very impressive, if accurate and help explain why I found the NS-1000X to be one of the better sounding commercially available speakers I have run across.
Response with the adjustments at flat and +/- 3dB on the mids and tweets.

NS1000Xadjustedsettings.jpg
No wonder, the frequency response showing the -3dB point on the controls is an excellent match to the response curve Brüel & Kjær's study of psychoacoustics showed to sound most natural. Something that is interesting considering most speakers tend to slope up for the 'wow' factor. Somewhere I have a poor copy of that graph and if I can find it, I'll post it.

All in all, I'm becoming more impressed with the speakers the more I read of them. Someday I'm going to have to try and get a pair.

- JP
 
When Mark B gets the woofer fixed, it'd probably be worth a drive down to listen to them on his big amp.
 
I have the Aus Hi-Fi test of the 1000x, including graphs, they found the balance of the speaker better than the regular 1000, as the bass component was more defined in the 1000x due to its carbon fiber woofers. Since I own both the X and M, I feel that the slam factor in the X is far more defined and pronounced than the M which doesn't mean the M is any slouch, just that the X is that good.
 
Thanks for sharing.
One interesting note, the 10k & up "droop" is VERY similar to some Apogee models, and elecrostats. I believe this is why many owners feel that they sound very "statish". (new word???) :D and neutral.
 
When Mark B gets the woofer fixed, it'd probably be worth a drive down to listen to them on his big amp.
Just one more reason to eventually head that way.

Come to think of it, it is about time for another gathering in the Portland area and Mark's collection is getting a bit too big to transport elsewhere...:scratch2:

Mark, up for hosting?

- JP
 
Thanks for sharing.
One interesting note, the 10k & up "droop" is VERY similar to some Apogee models, and elecrostats. I believe this is why many owners feel that they sound very "statish". (new word???) :D and neutral.
That's an interesting thought to apply to the NS-1000. Normally when I think of planar neutrality, it has to do with the quality of the midrange, but you may be on to something there considering how bright speakers sound unnatural. Would you happen to have any graphs laying around for comparison to those for the 1000X (even though I couldn't find the one from the study I promise)?

- JP
 
One of the people that made the comparison here, to electrostatics was Cosmos, he found the sound at the 0 settings to be lacking, but when he turned them up to the +3dB settings, he preferred the sound. Personally, at 0, I found them a tad on the forward side, and at +3dB, they were a bit piercing. back off about a DB on the mids and tweets and I found them to be excellent.
 
In agreement with your finding. Can be a be 'bright' or 'edgy' sound with the L-pads at, and, especially, above, zero. Preferred to listen at about -1 on both the tweeter and mid. Certainly an excellent speaker for the $$ involved. Can't touch their sound in a new speaker from anything near the $1K+/- that they generally sell for (NS-1000X being 50-100% higher).
 
Is this the B&K Plot You Reference?

Thanks for sharing those graphs. I found them to be very interesting to read.


No wonder, the frequency response showing the -3dB point on the controls is an excellent match to the response curve Brüel & Kjær's study of psychoacoustics showed to sound most natural. Something that is interesting considering most speakers tend to slope up for the 'wow' factor. Somewhere I have a poor copy of that graph and if I can find it, I'll post it.

All in all, I'm becoming more impressed with the speakers the more I read of them. Someday I'm going to have to try and get a pair.

- JP

B-K_Curve.jpg


It's from a paper titled Relevant loudspeaker tests in studios, in Hi-Fi dealers' demo rooms, in the home etc - using 1/3 octave pink-weighted random noise that B&K presented at the 47th Audio Engineering Society Convention1974-02-26/29 Copenhagen, Denmark. Sorry for poor quality. It a jpg of 32 yr old copy of a copy of B&K's reprint of the paper.
 
It's from a paper titled Relevant loudspeaker tests in studios, in Hi-Fi dealers' demo rooms, in the home etc - using 1/3 octave pink-weighted random noise that B&K presented at the 47th Audio Engineering Society Convention1974-02-26/29 Copenhagen, Denmark. Sorry for poor quality. It a jpg of 32 yr old copy of a copy of B&K's reprint of the paper.
Awesome, thanks for that. It's actually a better copy than I had.

- JP
 
The value's of the NS-1000M and NS-1000X crossovers is indeed the same, however there are differences, firstly the NS-1000X crossover is directly hard-wired together (no pcb like the in the 1000M). Also, as with the 2000 and 10000, the crossover in the 1000X spaces it's inductors as far apart as possible to avoid interference.

I'm still collecting parts for my new crossovers, just finishing my 18mm mdf mounting boards. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom