It’s curious that expectation bias from speaker measurements is just as likely to develop as from a speaker’s: appearance, price, name brand etc. (i.e. “conventional” sources of such bias).
Where measurements get interesting is how folks can have more-or-less informed background knowledge / experience with which to interpret them and develop extrapolations.
An important consideration is how “good” measurements could be used to fillip experimenter bias much the way some “conventional” speaker preference-driving traits have been used. In the case of measurements, I wonder if the effect will be more pronounced. That seems a possibility given (1) the average consumer’s probable lower level of consistency in understanding a suite of data, a spin graph / score, etc. (vs. a characteristic that doesn’t require as much understanding of analytics), and (2) the obvious fact that while good measurements don’t insure a speaker will sound good to a given listener, there is good reason to predict / assume this.
For average consumers, I think measurements = just another category with which folks will have to pick their individual points of “honesty-with-oneself” in order to use them efficiently (or avoid them) … (again, as consumers). Obviously, it’s different for designers, who by virtue of their trade should be increasingly considerate of measurements since they’ll potentially face an increasing trend of such data for their products. The recent thing between one designer and a couple of data gurus online is an extraordinary free lesson towards this angle, for anyone else in, and everyone entering, the trade (IMO).
As some of the knowledgeable designers have pointed out, relevance of measurements really depends on certain things more-or-less important to the given listener, and how the listener will have the speakers set up. But predictions / assumptions developed without a sufficient first-hand frame of reference (comparing multiple measurements x multiple speakers) could be spurious.
And even with much experience (in measurements x speakers consumerism), starting a speaker hunt with measurements in mind is starting a speaker hunt with bias. Perhaps not all bias produces poor real-world results. 😉 It’s an intriguing conundrum.
|
Zu is a popular speaker that doesn’t measure that great. And they do not threaten to sue people about it either.
|
This is very simple , The High -End speakers must to be got good sound (using you hearing ability and must got good measurements ( No big wide dips ets) . If The measurement is bad and you like the sound . Something wrong with you, but if measurements is good sound some time lifeless , becouse Speakers company try to flattering responce using very complicate crossovers with a lot capacitors , unductors , killing the sound, One time i check Canton High End , nice looking and big Ls, Responce was very flat , but sound was bad
|
I don't have robots and machines in my place listening to music so I don't care what they have to say, so I use my ears and brain for measurements. If I like how it sounds, it measures great for me...
|
The audiophiles who denounce the merit of measurements tend to be those who cannot or do not understand them. Coincidence?
|
|
@helomech For sure…. i don’t even see much evidence of level matching…. or a basic understanding of the noise floor of the listening room. But we can certainly model some good behaviors and practices…best to you in music
|
Speaking of measurements. I think one of the most pertinent yet often absent metrics is distortion. And not just THD, but also the profile of the individual harmonics. Other than those who use the Klippel (Erin’s Audio Corner for example), I don’t see such measurements.
I think B&W 800 series might make for a good case study. Despite their non-textbook frequency response, I don’t find them nearly as fatiguing as other brands with similar responses. I suspect that’s because their drivers are low in distortion, especially offensive higher order harmonics.
|
@audiokinesis With your discussion of on-axis/off-axis, made me wonder if that means these speakers should not be toed-in--ie so listening position is off-axis? or perhaps toed-in to where the "crossing point" is in front of listener?
|
@wyoboy wrote: "@audiokinesis With your discussion of on-axis/off-axis, made me wonder if that means these speakers should not be toed-in--ie so listening position is off-axis? or perhaps toed-in to where the "crossing point" is in front of listener?"
I’ve seen a different Alta Audio model (which I enjoyed enormously) at an audio show and they had them toed-in just a little bit. Here’s a link to a YouTube video with the Adams, again toed-in just a little bit; conversation with the designer starts around 3:00. If there is anything amiss that correlates with the Stereophile on-axis curve, it’s apparently below my detection threshold:
They don’t strike me as designed for time-intensity trading; that is, axes criss-crossing in front of the listening position. So my instinct is that little or no toe-in would probably work best.
|
Then it’s sip a low end speaker with a high price!
|
Then it’s simply a low end speaker at a high price!
|
from what the graph shows, you have standing nodes. mainly cancelation - tall tale sign with those valleys.
if you were using them to record then you'd have problems with mix down.
but funny enough our brains do a lot of cognitive filtering such that much of it gets 'ignored'
if you were to test the speakers either outside, properly setup then you would get what the manufacture would get. Room acoustics is an important factor to good measurements, but not necessarily bad sound. Floor reflections are particularly hard to control even in the studio. there are plenty of books on room acoustics and how to create a good environment. but its a good idea to provide some random reflection of random frequencies, such things as phase deflectors . but the most common and cost effective is floor to ceiling book shelves filled with various sizes of books. these will diffuse standing waves very effectively - you dont want to absorb the waves using dampening materials - unless you know what you are doing - REV is a free room analyzer that comes with a wealth of information on room calibration.
I use it both in my studio and at home to calibrate my listening areas.
Also should be aware on how the microphone used in testing is designed. omni's are great for overall response, but if you have a issue with standing waves - you wouldn't know where they are coming from , where as directional mics will.
|
I would quote Darko… there isn’t bad audio gear, just mis-priced gear. I like deep_333’s philosophy, an exceptional price requires exceptional novelty on the part of the designer / manufacturer.
My experience is loudspeakers sound like their defects. Some of those defects we can see very clearly in measurements. Some defects sound good in the short term and can fool us. Some people like being fooled… others regret it. For comb filtering-like responses certain notes will align with the comb peaks, others with the comb valleys, giving an impression of detail and excitement.
It seem likely this speaker will be very much a matter of taste and may require a lot of setup time to get it right for your listening space.
|
With speakers it is close to impossible to have a "flat line" speaker that will sound good in your room, So you get your "flat line" speaker home and it promises to disappoint.
|
Not all dips are created equal even if they look similar. How the dip was caused makes a significant difference.
Comb filter effects tend to be considerably more benign than the dip in an anechoic or quasi-anechoic curve implies. This is because the energy is actually still there, and arrives after a reflection or two, and tends to perceptually fill in the dip. The ear/brain system does not process sound the same way that microphones do.
The floor bounce dip is a comb filter effect that looks dreadful on paper but is relatively benign because it is filled in by the subsequent room reflections. If you want to compare what the floor bounce dip sounds like with and without reflections, have someone talk to you from a few feet away indoors. Pay attention to the timbre of their voice. Then walk outdoors and have that person talk to you again from about the same distance, again paying attention to the timbre of their voice. The direct sound is the exact same; the reflections are what’s different. Without reflections filling in the floor-bounce dip, their voice sounds much thinner.
Another virtually ubiquitous comb filter effect is the 2 kHz stereo dip. At about 2 kHz the signal from the left speaker arrives at the right ear delayed by 1/2 wavelength (because of the path-length difference), and a comb-filter cancellation dip results. Likewise at the left ear the same thing happens. In approximately anechoic conditions (including near-field listening) this dip can be audible, and mixing engineers actually use this dip in their well-damped mixing rooms to find exactly where their ears should be when using nearfield monitors. But in a normal listening set-up, this comb filter effect is filled in by the in-room reflections and is not noticeable.
On the other hand, a dip that is due to reduced output from a driver is far more likely to be audible and objectionable because it shows up in the direct sound and in the reflections.
Microphone height can make a great deal of difference in the on-axis frequency response measurement depending on how directional the drivers are in the vertical plane and how their outputs are combining at the microphone location. In practice there is often considerably less change in timbre at the listening position than one might expect from the differing curves taken at different microphone heights because the in-room contribution of the reflections tends to average things out.
Don’t get me wrong, I am very much pro-measurements! The first 90 percent or so of my work on a design is purely measurement-based. But sometimes measurements taken at face value can be misleading; ime the actual cause of frequency response anomalies needs to be understood and taken into account. It takes a LOT of measurements to tell enough of the story to get a reliable picture of what’s going on, and even then the characteristics of the human hearing system can result in perception not precisely matching up with expectations.
Duke
|
I'm reading @audiokinesis but avoiding commenting when I just don't know what I'm talking about. Honestly my experience with very poor measuring speakers is rather limited so I yield the floor. 🤣
|
Someone said:
"If it measures badly and sounds good, it is good.
"If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad."
That may be true. No, not true. Never!
If you feel good even if poor measurement, your listening comprehension is not perfect though you can enjoy with the poor-measure-speakers.
Only true professional reviewer can tell any weakness. But we are ok with the speakers if the price is not so high. Otherwise, we are wasting our money.
|
I honestly do not need to look at the spec's to know if a speaker sounds good.....but if you do and if you that is important to you then knock yourself out......
|
I have heard the Devore O series speakers. They are just terrible to me. And the latest from Devore, his 44K USD O that is out, at AXPONA, sounded like a tin radio. Down the hall they had the mini O's playing driven by a Naim Unity which sounded 10X better than his tour de force model.
To each his own.
|
If the speaker says " Reference " we can purchase with confidence.
|
@erik_squires wrote: "I'm reading @audiokinesis but avoiding commenting when I just don't know what I'm talking about. Honestly my experience with very poor measuring speakers is rather limited so I yield the floor. 🤣"
Here is Floyd Toole being much more succinct than me:
"A ripple in the on-axis curve may be acoustical interference (not very audible, or inaudible), but if it replicates in spatially averaged measurements it is almost certainly evidence of a resonance."
|
What if there is no measurements? People gravitate towards pricings right away, higher price = greater sound, lower price = poor sound
|
I can hear a pair of speakers, and by how they sound, I can usually be pretty accurate on what parameters will measure badly.
I have built and upgraded enough speakers in my life, to let me know where the problem measurements will be. I tend to be pretty sensitive to the sound of stored energy, that is visible in the waterfall plot.
@sounds_real_audio
I honestly do not need to look at the spec’s to know if a speaker sounds good.....but if you do and if you that is important to you then knock yourself out......
You have it a bit backwards from the way I approach speaker measurements.
I don’t look at the measurements, then judge how good the speaker is based on them. I listen to the speaker, then judge whether I like it or not, then I look at the measurements to see why I did or did not like the speakers.
As I said above, I can listen to speakers, and easily pick out too much stored energy in the system.
|
As long as it gets good reviews on how it sounds, I do not see that bad measurements matter much.
|
@cdc You don’t have the reviewers’ ears. So, anything subjective said is like throwing darts. I ignore the subjective crap they throw out because it is useless to me.
I look at the measurements on Stereophile - ignore the platitudes.
|
I can hear a pair of speakers, and by how they sound, I can usually be pretty accurate on what parameters will measure badly.
I have built and upgraded enough speakers in my life, to let me know where the problem measurements will be. I tend to be pretty sensitive to the sound of stored energy, that is visible in the waterfall plot.
@sounds_real_audio
I honestly do not need to look at the spec’s to know if a speaker sounds good.....but if you do and if you that is important to you then knock yourself out......
You have it a bit backwards from the way I approach speaker measurements.
I don’t look at the measurements, then judge how good the speaker is based on them. I listen to the speaker, then judge whether I like it or not, then I look at the measurements to see why I did or did not like the speakers.
As I said above, I can listen to speakers, and easily pick out too much stored energy in the system.
This is what highly experienced and knowledgeable listeners with sufficient hearing ability can do. Perhaps unfortunately, the majority of audiophiles are relatively inexperienced, and many are nearly in need of cochlear implants.
Then there are those who either cannot understand measurements, or mistakenly believe they understand them, such as the guy upthread who claims comb-filtering is relatively benign (incorrect). They read the literature of Toole and Olive but misinterpret the data and theories. That or they misrepresent the data in bad faith—in order to support their false narrative (like the speaker designers who point to Equal Loudness Contours to justify poor linearity (Audio Note for example).
What is most ironic, is some such manufacturers will only aim for linearity and low distortion where their flagship products are concerned. It’s easy to make the next higher performance tier legitimately better when the predecessor is mediocre.
|
@helomech That is BS. Who trained them to hear that way. I would say fine, if they were a trained musician. Not supposed golden ears. I have been when a few were fooled by low-cost systems when they couldn't see the system playing.
I went through taste training, when I worked at a distillery. I was not as good at others, that is the truth, so unless there is a standard training I don't believe 'Golden Ears' audiophiles. Since I know the rigor that goes into training ONE sense, that is standardized in the industry.
|
@botrytis
That is a valid point. It is interesting how one’s point of view affects the interpretation of was was written.
I was thinking more about the affect on "salability". That is where I was coming from.
Which is more influential, bad measurements or bad subjective opinion? My guess is the latter.
|
@helomech That is BS. Who trained them to hear that way. I would say fine, if they were a trained musician. Not supposed golden ears. I have been when a few were fooled by low-cost systems when they couldn’t see the system playing.
I went through taste training, when I worked at a distillery. I was not as good at others, that is the truth, so unless there is a standard training I don’t believe ’Golden Ears’ audiophiles. Since I know the rigor that goes into training ONE sense, that is standardized in the industry.
It’s true there is no industry-wide standard for listening, however, Toole and Harman have an established training and ability standard for the listeners it employs in its DBX comparisons. I would bet it’s similar for the wine industry too, you would probably see different standards had you attended training elsewhere (though the whole analogy is a straw-man argument anyhow, since we don’t hear with our tongues).
Regardless, I wasn’t implying that some of us are simply blessed with golden ears, I was merely pointing out the facts that 1) the majority who engage in the “hobby” are well into their retirement years, and it’s statistically true that most have suffered 10s of dB hearing loss relative to someone in their 20s or 30s. 2) I was also pointing to the poster’s mention of his experience with DIY and modifications, which the vast majority of audiophiles lack. Such experience can be very educational for correlating measurements with subjective sound quality. I don’t think it’s a stretch to presume the majority of audiophiles have never built their own speakers or designed a crossover, or even read some of Dr. Toole’s and Olive’s research for the matter. I would bet the vast majority cannot interpret measurement graphs beyond a simple on-axis impulse response.
Regarding experience, it also helps to purchase and/or listen to speakers for which 3rd-party measurements are published. For example, of the ≈35 speaker pairs I’ve owned over the last decade, there are published measurements available for at least 20 of them, probably more. So if I hear something offensive, I can subsequently reference the graphs to see whether there is a blatant or likely culprit (which of course requires comprehension of said graphs). More often than not, the cause is rather obvious if the measurement suit is thorough. Sometimes the cause is not so blatant, but that’s typically the case when the offense is relatively minor, or in cases of “sins of omission.” For example, if I find a speaker has a tendency to be fatiguing only after lengthy listening sessions, it could be that it has a driver break up mode that isn’t apparent without a waterfall/CSD graph or distortion data to reference.
Again, my comment was not to imply that some are simply gifted with golden ears and those listeners prefer textbook measurements. I was merely pointing to the facts that some have experience in correlating measurements to sound quality that many (if not most) lack, and of course, we all tend to suffer hearing decline as we age. So if someone in their early 20s tells me they are fatigued by a speaker that trends upward in the highs, I realize I may not conclude the same speaker is fatiguing to my ears.
I hope that clarifies the intent of my post.
|
I am lucky, because at 63, I can still hear 16K in one ear and 13K in the other since I have been in medical monitoring at work. I use ear protection and ear plugs when it gets too loud, like at concerts and work.
|
@helomech How many 'Golden ears' have been through that training. I bet one could count the number on one hand. That IS THE POINT. No standards.
|
I will no longer consider a speaker that has not been independently measured. It is not that a good set of measurements guarantee a good sounding speaker. I am looking at the measurements to understand the designer's background and motivation. I want the speaker that the designer made for himself through a combination of good engineering and listening evaluation. As opposed to made per the marketing department, or worse was designed by someone in the marketing department using a newly purchased copy of the Loudspeaker Cookbook.
|
@prof Engineering in the service of art, or esthetics. In the end, the esthetic result is what counts. The test results may or may not agree. Also, I have a set of speakers that images and soundstages in a very engaging way. It also has audible frequency anomalies. I still love listening to them. The instruments and voices still sound natural to me and I can point at them in the mix. It makes for a more interesting experience.
|
@botrytis How do you account for the Golden Eared professionals who are responsible for the great recorded works. Are they just listeners, like any other? Did they take a standardized listening course?
Yes, hearing is a talent. I have known and read of producers and engineers for many years and none of them relies on measurements or room equalization. In fact, many of the greatest Pop recordings were monitored by Yamaha NS-10s. A terrible sounding speaker with harsh anomalies in the midrange. How di they use those anomalies and why did they prefer them?
And if you don't like the Devore O's, many do. They are a very successful speaker. Do you have the magic golden ears now?
|
Sometimes I would rather hear a lot of poeticisms about why a speaker sounds great, rather than hear a bunch of pretenders spout off about graphs and charts that they are not equipped to interpret meaningfully. It's a misleading pretense and not in any way science related, or more importantly, pertinent to the art of speaker design. The only participant in this thread who has the expertise to speak to the science is Audiokinesis. And I am noticing that he shines a lot of insight, but has nothing negative to say. I really appreciate that.
|
I would like to recommend that you all spend some time listening on your own and figure out what appeals to you. Then report on what works for you and what you like and notice. Do that for many years and I believe you can find a very satisfying experience. The graphs, the science that you do not fully understand, and the pretentious pseudo-engineer platitudes may make you feel like an expert, but your aren’t.
|
@helomech so you believe that Harmon and Toole don't have any bias, after all they are competing in the industry. All the Toole listening test I have read about place one speaker in the same position not taking into account the design of the speaker.
|
Sometimes I would rather hear a lot of poeticisms about why a speaker sounds great, rather than hear a bunch of pretenders spout off about graphs and charts that they are not equipped to interpret meaningfully. It's a misleading pretense and not in any way science related, or more importantly, pertinent to the art of speaker design. The only participant in this thread who has the expertise to speak to the science is Audiokinesis. And I am noticing that he shines a lot of insight, but has nothing negative to say. I really appreciate that.
😂
It’s quite apparent from his posts that Audiokineses doesn’t have a strong grasp of speaker science. So that leads me to presume you do not either.
Read, learn, then read some more, then test the theories for yourself.
The issue with ideal measurements vs actual performance is that many listeners who design these products actually possess little experience and knowledge themselves. That, and/or they have a convoluted perception of what’s “good” based on their years of accumulated hearing damage (hence the rising treble or “V-Curve” we often seen in graphs). Many DIYers like Troels Gravesen possess far greater knowledge and experience than most of the commercial product designers. And it’s not often you’ll encounter an experienced DIYer who aims for anything less than good linearity and low distortion.
|
so you believe that Harmon and Toole don't have any bias, after all they are competing in the industry. All the Toole listening test I have read about place one speaker in the same position not taking into account the design of the speaker.
AFAIK, Toole is retired. And Harman (not “Harmon”) does actually test speakers at different listening axis. Sure it’s the same boundary lengths but then so will it be in the majority of listener’s setups. Harman aims for what performs good in a real-world room as well as in an anechoic environment. Perhaps you could research further into their processes.
By no means am I claiming they make the best speakers or the absolute best at their price points. Their main intent is to beat out their handful of primary competitors (B&W, Focal, Paradigm etc.) when it comes to performance/dollar. IME, they typically achieve that goal in terms of currently available competitor products. Thus, I believe their DBX test methodology bears fruit in real world applications. Again, not saying they are THE Best,” only that they tend to produce better value than their primary competition at respective price points. I surmise that’s likely because they stick to established science, but of course, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility they have access to magic fairy dust. 😉
|
Yeah, speakers with lumpy response can tailor our setlist because while they take some songs over the top, they hold others back. Companies like B&W have obviously done some research on their target market and tune their speakers for them I'm great with that because they're a legitimate company building consistent products.
|
@helomech wrote:
"It’s quite apparent from his posts that Audiokineses doesn’t have a strong grasp of speaker science."
Could you elaborate? I'd like to know where you disagree with me. I'm not infallible.
Thanks.
|
I can respect that horn lovers prefer dynamics to flat response. There was a good argument for the fletcher munson curve also. A flat speaker nearly always sounds bass shy.
|
|
Regardless, I wasn’t implying that some of us are simply blessed with golden ears, I was merely pointing out the facts that 1) the majority who engage in the “hobby” are well into their retirement years, and it’s statistically true that most have suffered 10s of dB hearing loss relative to someone in their 20s or 30s. 2) I was also pointing to the poster’s mention of his experience with DIY and modifications, which the vast majority of audiophiles lack. Such experience can be very educational for correlating measurements with subjective sound quality. I don’t think it’s a stretch to presume the majority of audiophiles have never built their own speakers or designed a crossover, or even read some of Dr. Toole’s and Olive’s research for the matter. I would bet the vast majority cannot interpret measurement graphs beyond a simple on-axis impulse response.
Just my 5 cents experience...
For your point number one, acuity of young and mature ears must be a must for the industry designer but i am 72 years old audiophile and i experimented a lot with acoustics for my own pleasure and for creating my system...
I dont use computing tools nor any computing analysis of measurements...😁
I used only my experience and i succeeded correcting the defects ( vibrations/resonance,shielding, and performance in a room ) of my speakers ...
I modified them (rearport redesigned) better wave guide and i used a complex set of Helmholtz resonators inside one another with an inside neck and a belt of diffuser behind me between the two speakers...
The transformation impact is stupendous...
Then we can use our imperfect old ears as tool and knowing what we do when we do it if we had trained them to recognise acoustics basic parameters variation in reality not virtually. I am able to correlate all acoustics parameters with my subjective impression in my own room...It is my second room. I did it 2 times.
This make me conclude that measurements are useful for designing good speakers, but we need to measure the relation between speakers and room and our own ears. I could had used the Choueiri method to do the basic inner ears and HTRF measures and could had used his filters and a good DSP. But i dont had it...😊
Then i used my hearing as a tool and my results are staggering . It is not perfect but it is enough to smile at any upgrade...
my low cost modified speakers give me holographic sound, immersiveness and listener envelopment with natural timbre.
Conclusion : speakers sound exist in a room for specific ears...
The set of necessary measures must be a set way more complex than what speakers designers spoke about most of the time...( for example taming the pressure zone distribution in the room with resonators location and dimensions)
Because i cannot compute all this parameters i did it with my trained ears...
Complete success...
Speakers must measure well if the designer know what he is doing...But the real speakers set of measures are done in a room with the ears as tool as i did or with the ears measured if possible ( as with the Choueiri kit)...
All audiophiles are not deluded one. And speaking of "golden ears" here it is not super acuity claims about hearing but it is only about training the ears and make them able to correlate subjective perception with acoustics physical parameters. I am a "golden old and less acute ears" in this second sense. I will not be helpless with any speakers in any room because i will know what to do...
Exactly like the Roman architect Vitruvius who used resonators in theater architecture without electrical tools nor computer...and even today acoustician are stunned by ancient theater acoustics.. . Vitruvius was "golden ears"...
What is a speaker for me ?
A Helmholtz resonator...
What is a room for me ?
A Helmholtz resonator...
What is a speakers set in a room ?
The same thing as the thing i had designed yesterday : it is a resonator inside a resonator as the one i put behind my listening position... 😋
Then all must be tuned, mechanically, electrically and acoustically ...
For me high end gear is often more about price tags than about acoustics qualities...Anyway who will buy 100,000 bucks speakers? Most of the time someone not interested by acoustics and not interested by the time and method necessary to create a room for his speakers and for his ears..
|
It could be the measurement was not done correctly. Here is the freq. response of the Thiel CS2.4 done by Stereophile. It doesn't look very good, but the speakers are very neutral and sound quite good.
|
@andy2 - That’s kind of a weird graph, I think the bass response is incorrect, it’s way too flat to be real.
On another note, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you. The two times I’ve heard those speakers I was completely unable to listen too them. They sounded much like the Triangles to me and painfully bright.
I know many Thiel lovers here will disagree with me, and that’s fine, I know I’m in the minority. I have to wonder if their charm isn’t at lower listening levels or if I made the mistake of listening with too much toe-in?
|
Here is the freq. response of the Thiel CS2.4 done by Stereophile. It doesn’t look very good, but the speakers are very neutral and sound quite good.
This is not "neutral and sound quite good". Perceptively, this is another episode of V curve-ish crap that will have appeal to some guy who’s forged in the flames of cheap Klipsch or other lousy focals.
I have ignored the Thiel thread until now (let y’all fan boys rejoice in your own lil pond gleefully), but, you decided to bring it to another different kind of thread...where the truth may get spoken. Sorry to burst your bubble.
|
