Dhaan,
Interpreting anechoic measurements is an interesting excercise. Depending on testing technique, results may vary considerably. Assuming that the graph you cited contains no measurement artifacts in the bass (no sure thing, at all), I'd still read this graph much differently than you do.
These speakers aren't 6-8db depressed in the presence region. The full treble region is shelved down about 3 db from the bass/mid and you are seeing that transition. This downward tilt in anechoic response is almost always a good thing for in-room performance. Unless your room has a major bump above 80hz (and many do) to balance the increased presence/treble energy experienced in most rooms, flat anechoic response theough the treble will sound awfully aggressive in-room. If you employ a Hemholtz resonator to correct for this bump (bass trap, bass busters, etc), you will certainly appreciate the Verity's response pattern.
The graph looks worse than it is because there is also a troubling looking suckout in the lower treble from about 3K to 5K. (This range begins in the highest octave on a piano and extends past C7, well above what I'd call "presence".) II've never noticed this issue on my (pre-Ovation) P/Es, but it may be unique to the Ovations. It might make these sound a bit darker than mine, but again, this is tough to predict in-room. In any event, I would never dismiss a speaker based on this anechoic test result.
Marty
BTW, have you ever actually heard them? |
Dhaan,
The reason I asked if you've heard them is because your reaction to the speaker is unique IME. Incidentally I've never heard the Ovations, so please understand that no disrespect was intended.
Over the last 10 years, I've played them for - literally - dozens of people who own high end speakers and not one has commented on problems with the tonal balance - other than to note a slight warmth (my own opinion). BTW, I also own Merlin VSMs, which lean the other way, and played back to back, most people like both. The Merlins absolutely polarize opinion more than the P/Es which are IME universally admired.
If these speakers really sound dull through the presence range to you , then it's either peculiar to the "next generation" of Verity or peculiar to your taste. Notwithstanding "speaker building 101", you are the only person I've ever heard dismiss this speaker on this basis. BTW, the review attached to the FR graph you linked was a flat out rave.
If there is a body of opinion out there more critical of Verity, I've never seen it. This doesn't make you wrong, merely (as far as I know) an outlier.
Marty |
Dhaan,
This is one of those agree to disagree things.
I have never seen any set of specs that acurately correlates to my experience of in room performance - including on-axis frequency response and power response measured at the listing position (I have done both). Certainly no manufacturer's spec comes close. I'm not suggesting magic - just that the speaker and room together are the relevant system, and no manufacturer can predict that (though some try!) unless they do room correction. Further, FOR ME no single in-room spec captures all the relevant data.
My comment about the uniformity of opinion re: Verity was not restricted to owners. (BTW, I'm an owner and, ironically, prior to you, I thought I was the most "Verity critical" voice on the forum, though mine was more "nits"). Scan the threads and you will find TONS of Wilson bashing and Sonus Faber bashing to use your 2 examples. OTOH, you are the first I've found to dismiss Verity.
I will not take issue with your comments regarding design flaws in the Parsifals, I am not qualified. OTOH, design and performance, though related, are not the same thing. You say the car will not go far, I say the bumblebee indeed does fly, even if you don't want it to! In this regard, you should acknowledge that your theory of "objectivity" puts you in an odd position:
If the performance of the Verity is obviously flawed, there should be a community of opinion pointing that out - just as there are for Wilson and Sonus Faber (not that I agree or disagree with their position). For Verity, you seem to comprise that community. Hence, my characterization "outlier". Gallileo was an outlier. You may be Gallileo or you may be wrong.
Marty |
Pubul,
Many contributors to these threads maintain that the speaker is top heavy (insufficient bass). The VSMs IME are very sensitive to room and partnered electronics. Their impedence curve probably contributes to the latter. In my home, particularly before I had the SEs upgraded, a number of people made the same comment - generally after direct comparison to the Verity, which is a bit warmer. However, the vast majority like both.
Over the years, I have wavered between them, switching them in and out of my system. Over time, I migrated more to the VSMs. Recently, I have added a couple of new speakers into the rotation, so both the P/Es and VSMs are sidelined for a while. I assure you, when they return to action both speakers will once again delight with their respective strengths and satisfy with their common lack of significant weaknesses.
Marty |
Dhaan,
I understand your point. It would be difficult to design high performance into any product without some sense of best practices. But....
Performance of a loudspeaker is, as a practical matter, only meaningful in room. Room contributions often overwhelm the intrinsic (to the extent that this word has any meaning in this context, you can probably substitute "anechoic") character of any loudspeaker. Hard as this may be for a disciplined designer to swallow, a "poor" design may perform very well in an unanticipated environment.
I have used the P/E in 4 rooms. The last should count as two, pre room treatment and post room treatment, as the character of the room changed so drastically after treatment. In 4 of these rooms (#4 pre-treatment excepted) the Verity produced an exceptionally "natural" sounding tonal balance. Not merely my opinion, but that of literally everyone who's heard it and offered a comment (lots of folks).
I only see 3 possibilities here:
1) My speaker does not have the same performance issue as the Ovation, presumably due to differing design.
2) The speakers do sound similar and the vast majority of listeners (admittedly not tested for statistical reliability) mistakenly think they sound natural when they are obviously poor sounding.
3) The speaker - despite its design - sounds natural to most people in many real world environments, but your evaluation is different.
#1 or #2 is possible, but I suspect that #3 is at play here.
To explain this, you point to biases (owners love everything they just bought) among listeners. Certainly possible.
I'd only note that you ignore your own potential bias. You produced "Exhibit A" to support your argument: an anechoic graph that was of limited indicative value to me. "Exhibit B" was listing certain Verity design decisions that violate commonly accepted (I hope I'm characterizing your position fairly) best practices.
Clearly, you disagree with the design choices and believe that the raggedy anechoic response illustrates the cost of these decisions. (It certainly wasn't pretty, I'll give you that!.) I'm merely stating that - despite the design choices and anechoic result - I have not found a soul in my home, in print, or on-line, who shares your judgement that these speakers present an obviously and significantly flawed tonal balance.
My point is that these factors might be coloring your judgement. Or you may be right.
Marty |
Once again,
Indeed, the Verity may have a thousand problems due to its poor design (or it may not). I have not commented either way. You heard an obvious tonal balance problem with the Parsifal. I know of no-one else who has. I merely suggested that tonal balance is not a function of a speaker, but of a speaker in a specific room and that, in the vast majority of rooms, the Verity's anechoic suck-out is either barely audible or completely inaudible. I made the statement based on my own 10 years of experience, the experience of many, many hobbyist listeners who have heard the speaker in my home(s), a survey of print reviews, and a survey of on-line reviews (including the one you linked to).
I noted that this qualifies you as an outlier in this regard and that there are many possible explanations for this - including the possibilty that your judgement has been colored by your knowledge of the speaker's design and anechoic performance. I do not believe that I have made any other claim and, if I have, it was certainly unintentional.
With that, I think I've said what I have to say.
Best luck with your on-going efforts.
Marty
And to clarify my comment re: Wilson, I was merely speculating and I believe I made that quite clear in the post. |
Tube,
If I recall correctly, JA noted measurement issues with the Sarastro, but later in the review endorsed the sound based on subjective listening tests. My own belief is that the complex, dynamic behavior of a speaker reproducing music in-room has evaded the ability to produce a definitive test. Obviously, the same speaker sounds different in different rooms. It probably also sounds different at different spls in the same room. I suspect that it's gonna be quite a while before we see any test that allows meaningful quantitative testing of loudspeakers.
Marty
PS Notwithstanding the above, you seem to have fine taste in loudspeakers (i.e. the same as me!) |
Al and Dhaan,
I agree that Wilson's speakers are usually voiced this way. Did you ever wonder how they sound in a 50,000 cu/ft space? I bet the bass region falls substantially back to a more "normal" balance? I don't want to overstate the room thing, but I wonder whether Wilson voices their speakers for palatial rooms - maybe appropriate for their clientele. I've had the same question about the big MBLs.
Marty |
Dhaan,
Speakers sound different - in tonal balance - in different environments and at different spls. A speaker that is absolutely perfect at high spl in a small volume room will be imperfect at either lower spls or in a larger room. Sorry, but this is true.
Room gain below 150hz will typically range from a few db to 15db, with larger rooms tending to provide less as the speakers are moved further from the boundaries. Response anomalies from reflective surfaces above 1khz are utterly impossible to predict. A speaker like the Wilson - which to many people (including, evidently, you and me) - sounds overblown in the bass area, will sound less overblown when moved further from room boundaries. Ironically, this will make the anechoic measurements more useful, though - to me - still of very limited value. I am not suggesting that this will "cure" the Wilsons. I was merely wondering how they sound in a very large space and speculating that they will likely sound better than in the smaller spaces I've previously heard them.
My point is that 2 wrongs ABSOLUTELY make a right. If every room was identical - and had the identical single anomaly (let's say a 10db rise at 100hz) - then a speaker that is 10db down at 100hz WILL sound more natural tonally! I am not suggesting that you should design for this only because every room is not identical. My point in the first place!
Sorry, but it is impossible to judge the tonal balance of a speaker in anything but the context of a specific room.
BTW, this discussion is strictly limited to tonal balance as it grew from your contention that the Verity has an obviously skewed tonal balance. It has nothing to do with THD. Or many, many other performance parameters which may make or break a speaker in the opinion of any given listener.
Marty |
