Who Has Bought Speakers Solely Based on Objective Test Data?

Yes.... using my ears. All the test data I needed.

You're putting us on right Steve? Who would buy speakers based *solely* on specs?

Haven't bought on specs of course, but the Waveform Mach Solo's I used to own measured nearly flat on and off axis -- it was a design goal. They were transparent, dynamic, and neutral, though flat sounding which I think the 4th order crossover had something to do with.

No, but I consider them. I also consider whether a manufacturer can provide corroborative data when asked.

No, but I rule out a lot of speakers based on measurements.

In a way, yes. I have bought two pair of high end speakers blind/unheard and only based on the fact that the test data is better.

1987: A pair of Technics SB-M1 ($6500). Special order, 6 month delivery from Japan. No opportunity to audition. I upgraded from a pair of Technics SB-7 honeycomb speakers that I originally did audition and own

2004: A pair of Magnepan MG20.1 ($13000). Nearest dealer (Raliegh, NC) did not have them in stock at the time, so I was not offered a chance to audition them. I upgraded from a pair of MG3.6 that I originally did audition and (still) own.

So, yes, test data is a decisive factor to me. Listening to the speakers in a showroom can be deceiving since the speaker will sound different in your room/home...

Peter

How do explain speakers that might measure bad but have been tested in chambers?

Since most manufacturers of consumer (as opposed to pro speakers) don't necessarily follow accepted standards in their measurements, and, since these manufacturers do not provide polar radiation plots or other meaningful information, the answer is basically no. OTOH, we have to do all of that testing before we recommend a speaker, or, even design a room using any given speaker.

Not sure what you mean. You mean 'sounds good in a room'? Well, a room can't resurrect bad FR. It can't remove distortion, only add it. It can't remove spectral decay. About the only thing a room can do work with one speaker over another is how it deals with the off axis dispersion.

I mean, a speaker that was built and tested in a chamber but when someone tests it in a review it measures bad. Do you think a manufacturer would release a speaker that they know measures bad?

The only person I would trust using metrics only would be Dunlavy. He had such a clear idea of what measurements mattered to get the house sound he preferred that he could basically predict it by looking at measurements. There may be other designers who are as crystal clear about their measurement requirements...the question is were their design parameters at the same level of accomplishment as Dunlavy's.

How do you handle those folks who want recommendations on speakers for a new room, but want to keep their existing amp, processor, etc...?

Sean

I wonder just how much many speakers are tested objectively. A lot of speaker companies build speakers they know don't measure well or even sound very good because they are producing the sound their customers *expect*. Bill Bush told me that he had to be very careful making improvements to C-V speakers so as not to alienate the 16-25 year old demographic that couldn't care less about objective performance.

Such as?

I agree --- in part. I have owned most of his line (up to to and including the SC_VI) and still have SC_IVA's. And while his speakers probably measure better (anechoically ) than most, those measurements do not take into consideration real room response. Because of the large woofer drivers at the top and bottom of the cabinet, bass response in many rooms could be problematic. If that was not an issue, then it was a sound I personally never needed improvement upon.

That would be a tad off topic; but, (a) amplifiers are not (should not) be tone controls; (b) the amp should adequately drive the speaker (not more than 2/3rds of rated output); (c) the amp (and speakers) should be able to produce reference in the room. Surround processor? If they want to keep it, keep it (unless it is broken).

I have several times. I'm basically a lazy person and I always seem to live in remote rural areas like Monument Colorado or Lake Norman North Carolina. Traveling to audition speakers can be a pain the the arse. I bought a complete set of Triangle speakers on a whim and specs, never actually hearing them. Was I happy? Yep. They are in my 2nd HT room and the midrange is superb. I also picked up some Vandersteen speakers on a whim and specs. I figured I play around with them and then sell them off. I liked them so much that I put them into my main media room. I also bought five Dunlavy SC-AV1's once as I got a great deal on them. Wonderful speakers. In the next month or so I am going to buy a pair of either, Aerial 10T's, Aerial 7b's, Legacy Focus, or Dunlavy IV's without listening. (allright I actually have heard the Dunlavy's) I just like buying and experimenting with speakers. If I don't like them, I sell them. If I like them I use them, and then store them when I buy more. I know it seems like a waste but it's fun for me. If I want to invest time I invest it into my bike. Now I will say that I extensivly auditioned and rode the heck out of many different bikes before I bought one. Buying a bike without trying it doesn't make much sense to me. Please don't judge me too harshly.

No brand in particular. Mostly just curious if all speakers need a flat response
in order to be deemed 'acceptable'.

here's some pretty good opinions on that.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...ad.php?t=15292

I've never bought solely on objective data, but I have bought without both objective and subjective data...

I bought my first pair of Salon2s without any measurement info and without having had a chance to hear them anywhere. It was the easiest way for me to get a pair in my home and test them against my previous speakers. I didn't feel too worried though, as I had heard their previous model, and knew Revel's reputation for both objective and subjective modeling based on stringent blind testing. While their previous model didn't appeal to me more than the B&W 802Ds I owned awhile ago, the Salon2s appealed to me more than my previous speaker.

I really don't feel that there is any advantage to listening to well engineered speakers outside my own listening space. My own room is often very different from the demo room and I can never really tell what I think of speakers until I hear them in my own space. I also feel that with well engineered speakers, as long as I EQ out the rough room issues, they all can sound relatively similar in the sweet spot of my room. If I had realized that back when I owned the 802Ds, I may not have switched to any thing else, though I can't say that for certain at this point, having never done any thorough equalizing with that model.

I guess when you consider that I ordered the Salon2s without objective and subjective data, and then listened to them in my room, with steps taken to EQ dissimilarities out between the Salon2s and my previous speakers, I made my decision based on subjective experience. I don't know if an in-room measurement and EQ tweaking would be considered an objective measurement in the traditional anechoic sense, but if it would be considered objective, then I guess my ultimate decision to keep them and sell the other speakers were based on both subjective and objective measurements... I spent a bit of time comparing them both with EQ and without EQ, as well as in the same positions in the room and different positions based on where they melded best with the room response (each melded better with the room in a different area). Ultimately, the clarity of the treble on the Salon2 won out for me...

Previous to the Salon2, I bought based on demos outside my home, but I never felt the speakers sounded the same when I brought them home. I was relieved that the Salon2s did measure well once I saw some measurements come out a month or two after I bought them...

What does that mean? Do you mean tested in anechoic chambers? Or do you mean tested in listening rooms? I'd prefer measurements in an anechoic chamber and listening tests in a real domestic room.

I have done it twice.
Once with PSB Stratus Goldi's, an excellent decision.
Once with Salk V3s, an even better decision.

I live too far away from shops to drive and audition.

Yes, companies that have anechoic chambers. But when people test them they don't always measure perfectly flat or different than the manufacturer claims. Which brings the question is it possible they purpously release those speakers that don't measure flat and they know that? I will guess there are alot of factors involved, is the people who test the response have the same conditions as the anechoic chambers? Does equipment hooked up to them make a difference? Can other variables make a difference and possibly result in different outcomes in the graphs? How much stock do you put in the graphs kal?

Funny, I was planning on doing this very thing not so long ago!


You do know that you have to allow speakers to burn in, don't you?

Seriously, auditioning often requires travel and when you don't deal so well with that (like myself) and you have limited or no access to the products of interest locally, one occasionally has to buy sight unseen/heard. I would always prefer to physically experience something though.. Listening in dealers is advantageous to be sure, but a home demo is without doubt the best.

For all but one aspect of my system, a home demo was simply impossible.

Sean

Hi

My response to this question will be somewhat presumptuous.. I'll repeat.. NO one has done it and no one will do that.. One may become interested in a given speaker because of its measured performance but NO ONE will buy any speaker based on measurements solely... There will be qualifications:"I was attracted by the measurements, etc" but no one will pull a bunch of brochures, look for the flattest FR and the least THD or IM or SPL capabilities and purchase the speaker that score the highest on all these metrics. NO ONE!!!... Well.... then again there are always some free spirits some would call them deluded who think we know everything there is to know about sound reproduction... so I might have to take that back some... aside from these who we can count on one hand . NO ONE ELSE
... What I and am sure, others, have done is buy gear based solely on reviews (notice the plural); more recently the excellent Dynaudio MC15 for my Office System...

I am tempted to buy Legend Tikandis based on measurements and design. But I have other things I need to buy first, like a new motorcycle.

I'm picking up my Yamaha Star Vmax tomorrow or Wednesday! I ordered it last summer...

And here I thought I was the only person on the planet that bought a Technics SB speaker. I was working at McDonalds in 1986 and scraped together the bucks for the Technics SB-M3 (3k Cdn). I hadn't seen or heard them. Hadn't even actually seen any measurements but I figured since they cost twice as much as the Yamaha NS700X that I liked the sound of they must be better. LOL. Learned a lot since then. Those Technics are still working as the rears in my bro's surround sound setup.

Let's say you have done your homework and found five speakers that are flat within +/- .5db from 20Hz-20KHz. Each of the speakers will sound different depending on where the peaks and valleys fall within than 1db range. So which one are you going to pick based on measurements alone?