Speaker Shootout - two of the most accurate and well reviewed speakers ever made - Page 8 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1871Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #211 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 04:25 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
notnyt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 10,197
Mentioned: 315 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3731 Post(s)
Liked: 3705
Quote:
Originally Posted by awediophile View Post
I don't think the mention of QSC was with regard to their cinema speakers but rather one of their horns. I forget the specific model, but it measures very well. IMO, it's not as good as the SEOS horn family.

With that said, I don't believe the horn(s) used in the Titan-615 are the same as the QSC model.
Pretty sure the horn used in the titans are a direct order from qsc
notnyt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #212 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 04:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
OK, to bring this thread back on topic - finalizing details on the shootout this weekend. I think we still have some slots open for those interested in attending. Remember, this is not a sales event; our goal is for this to be a fun and educational experience.

YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO COMPARE THE REVEL SALON2 VS. THE JBL M2 - FINAL DATES AND TIMES SET!

August 11, 12 and 13

Location – our residential showroom in North Colorado Springs (PM me or email for address, email address at bottom)

Friday August 11th

  • 6 – 9 pm – casual hangout and listening, snacks and drinks provided

Saturday / Sunday Schedule (same both days, August 12th and 13th):

  • 11 -12 pm: demo of the JBL Synthesis M2 / LSR708i / C763L / SDP75 based immersive audio setup, now Synthesis calibrated
  • 12 pm – 1:30 pm: Break for lunch (lots of great places to eat within a short walking / driving distance)
  • 1 – 1:30 pm – setup of blind listening session (you are welcome to observe or assist)
  • 1:30 – 3:30 pm – Blind comparison between the M2s and the Salons (may run shorter or longer, depending on number of attendees)
  • 3:30 – 4:30 pm – Revel Salon2 stereo listening session
  • 4:30 – 5:30 pm – JBL M2 stereo listening session
  • 5:30 – 6 pm – Requests taken (possible Revel F208s, F36)

Any and all are welcome to attend this unique get-together August 11, 12 and 13. There are several factors that make this listening test unique:

1. This is a “shootout” between two of the flagship speakers from one parent company, based on all the latest research coming out of Harman labs, still the largest and best equipped audio research facility in the world. In other words, this is not a test of “brand A vs. brand B,” but a test of two flagship speakers from the same parent company, but using different approaches of achieving similar goals.

2. We will attempt to properly blind part of the listening tests and conduct them in a scientifically controlled manner, taking advantage of direct input from Dr. Floyd Toole on testing methodology. To say we are honored to have him advising us on how to set up this event would be an understatement.

3. This is an attempt at demonstrating how a speaker listening test should properly be set up, where all factors such as speaker placement, source material, and volume are equalized. In addition, part of the listening sessions will be conducted in a truly blind fashion, with both speakers hidden from view so no one knows which speaker is playing at any given time.

I am also happy to report that Harman is sending us new JBL SDP75 surround processor / pre-amp as a loaner specifically for this event.

To RSVP, please PM me or email me at my personal address:

jsmusicsound

at

gmail

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design

Last edited by John Schuermann; 08-07-2017 at 05:10 PM.
John Schuermann is offline  
post #213 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 05:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Full list of gear available to audition at the shootout, in addition to the speakers listed above:

  • JBL Synthesis SDP75 Surround Processor
  • JBL Synthesis SDA4600 and SDA8300 amps
  • JBL Synthesis S2S-EX subwoofers
  • JBL HTPS400 subwoofers

(Total of four subwoofers, calibrated by the SDP75)

  • JVC DLA-RS4500 Native 4K Laser Projector
  • Stewart StudioTek130 2.35:1 Masking Screen
  • Oppo UDP203 UHD Player
  • Straightwire 12/4 SuperQuad cables

More info on the SDP75 will come, probably tomorrow. I spent the weekend setting it up and getting it calibrated, with Curt Hoyt's extremely valuable input.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design

Last edited by John Schuermann; 08-07-2017 at 05:57 PM.
John Schuermann is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #214 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 05:35 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,475
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3412 Post(s)
Liked: 1861
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
RE: applying DSP and EQ to make speakers "sound better." From my understanding, this is the real trick. Many of the current room correction systems try not only to account for room deficiencies, they also try to EQ the speaker itself. When you have a speaker that is as neutral as a Salon2 or M2, EQ'ing over transition frequency (usually around 250 - 300 hz for most rooms), most room EQ systems are just going to make things worse. You just want to EQ up to about 500 hz or so and leave everything else alone, at least in the case of stereo speakers.

It's also my understanding that some new research coming out of Harman shows that EQ above transition can be helpful if done properly in immersive audio setups. Reason here is that immersive audio can include many speakers that are off axis to the listeners, so the amount of direct sound coming to the listener is not a given. This is the kind of thing that the Optimizer EQ in the JBL SDP75 surround processor has been designed to do, and it will only get better when the anechoic data for each and every Revel and JBL model is added to this (quite amazing) processor.
.
Isn't this what Mark Seaton was asking about a couple of days ago?

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is offline  
post #215 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 05:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Isn't this what Mark Seaton was asking about a couple of days ago?
I thought so, but when I offered this info, he said it wasn't quite what he was getting at.
Ericglo likes this.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #216 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 06:10 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
noah katz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Mountain View, CA USA
Posts: 22,641
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1819 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
If you are doing measurements... use frequency resolution of at least 1/20 octave over as much of the frequency range as possible. This can be hard with gated measurements, but fact is that high-Q resonances show up at low frequencies too. 1/3-octave or wider bandwidth measurements or smoothing can disguise all manner of audible flaws. They are for the marketing departments, not engineering.
Maybe it's old data or wrong to begin with, but some years ago I read that our hearing mechanism is comprised of a bunch of ~ 1/6th (I think) octave oscillators, and that what we hear in any one of those bands is the total energy in its passband, ergo high-Q resonances are not very audible.

Is that incorrect?
LTD02 likes this.

Noah
noah katz is online now  
post #217 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 07:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Skylinestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borneo Island
Posts: 3,039
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1308 Post(s)
Liked: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
Dr. Toole and I have been discussing the downsides of putting speakers designed for commercial cinemas into home theaters via email. May post some of that info here, if there's interest. However, I'm afraid that may drag this thread even further off topic. However, there's fascinating info about how poor the sound is in actual commercial theaters, controversy over what reference level should actually be, etc.
I'm confident there's a huge crowd over here seeking that answer. You can post it in the Pro thread. We need solid answer than 5x JBL Studio 530 is better than 5x JBL 4722.
Does this exclude @Archaea 's Mackie C200 ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post
But I'd like to suggest a 10k cap on the rule - for 99.9% of us in the forums speakers in that price range are just fanciful thinking and outside the intent or spirit of the rule
Hence I'm hoping to see the budget Studio 290 spinorama
Skylinestar is offline  
post #218 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 09:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bigguyca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East Turkestan
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 957 Post(s)
Liked: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
Maybe it's old data or wrong to begin with, but some years ago I read that our hearing mechanism is comprised of a bunch of ~ 1/6th (I think) octave oscillators, and that what we hear in any one of those bands is the total energy in its passband, ergo high-Q resonances are not very audible.

Is that incorrect?
Much good material on human hearing is available. Here is a good start:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4487355/

An excellent older book is: Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code by Fred Rieke, unfortunately it is out of print, but you may find a copy posted on the Internet if you search. The book is nice, because in addition to much insight into the subject, it places the math, which can be daunting, at the end of the book. The book ties information theory, entropy and the like, to how information from the ear is transferred to higher level processes.
bigguyca is online now  
post #219 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 09:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Hifisound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
This is a “shootout” between two of the flagship speakers from one parent company, based on all the latest research coming out of Harman labs, still the largest and best equipped audio research facility in the world.
Assuming they will sound different to most, it will be interesting to know the reason for it.
SPL capabilities shouldn't matter I guess, as both would be loud enough and level matched.
Could it be difference in DI ? Salon being sort of gradually increasing (with narrowing at 2kHz) and M2 being constant type (800Hz to 7 kHz)
Or Salon being, on avg, wider dispersion than M2 ?

Hifisound is offline  
post #220 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 09:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Hifisound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
We need solid answer than 5x JBL Studio 530 is better than 5x JBL 4722
Should be easy to add 4722s (modded) in the "requests" time on Sat/Sun, as its also a JBL😀😀
jjackkrash likes this.


Last edited by Hifisound; 08-08-2017 at 01:37 AM.
Hifisound is offline  
post #221 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 10:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1018 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post
Maybe it's old data or wrong to begin with, but some years ago I read that our hearing mechanism is comprised of a bunch of ~ 1/6th (I think) octave oscillators, and that what we hear in any one of those bands is the total energy in its passband, ergo high-Q resonances are not very audible.

Is that incorrect?
There is a school of thought, and research, that would say this is incorrect.

Matter of Fact, that school may say that high peaks are ALL you hear.


from http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/doc/drc.html#htoc32

Quote:
The spectral envelope is a concept which has been introduced in the field of speech synthesis and analysis and is defined simply as a smooth curve connecting or somewhat following the peaks of the signal spectrum. There are strong arguments and experimental evidence supporting this approach and the idea that our ear uses the spectral envelope for the recognition of sounds. The spectral envelope, for example, allow our ear to understand speech under many different conditions, whether it is voiced, whispered or generated by other means. These different conditions generate completely different spectrums but usually pretty similar spectral envelopes. The spectral envelope also easily explains why our ear is more sensitive to peak in the magnitude response and less sensitive to dips. A curve based on the peaks of the magnitude response is by definition little or not affected at all by dips in the frequency response.

In the speech recognition field many procedures have been developed to compute the spectral envelope. Some of them are based on Linear Predictive Coding (LPC), the Discrete Cepstrum, the so called “True Envelope” and finally the Minimum Variance Distortionless Response (MVDR). Most of these methods are optimized for speed, noise resilience and to provide good results in the voice spectrum range sampled at low sample rates, so they are not really suited for HiFi usage.

Within DRC a different procedure has been developed. This is a variation of the usual fractional octave smoothing procedure, using the parametric Hölder mean instead of the usual simple averaging. Furthermore the smoothing has been extended to provide the Bark and ERB scales resolution when applicable.

THANK YOU!!! for your selfless contribution to the audio world
Anders Torger for Brutefir
Thomas Drugeon for Rephase
John Mulcahy for room eq wizard
Denis Sbragion for DRC room correction
Juha Hartikainen for Winisd
1201 is offline  
post #222 of 1751 Old 08-07-2017, 11:54 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1018 Post(s)
Liked: 352
I would like to ask the organizer to ,if possible, include objective measurements like harmonic distortion at the same volume level, intermodulation distortion etc

BTW, I bet

m2 wins in the lows, S2 wins the highs
M2 wins at high volume , S2 wins at low volume
M2 wins for movies, and S2 wins for music
M2 wins dynamics, S2 wins soundstage

at the end of the day a tie, tipping towards the M2 as waveguides are all the rage right now, and of course the M2 is Master Reference
Gooddoc likes this.

THANK YOU!!! for your selfless contribution to the audio world
Anders Torger for Brutefir
Thomas Drugeon for Rephase
John Mulcahy for room eq wizard
Denis Sbragion for DRC room correction
Juha Hartikainen for Winisd
1201 is offline  
post #223 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 07:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,658
Mentioned: 181 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3687 Post(s)
Liked: 3283
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1201 View Post
I would like to ask the organizer to ,if possible, include objective measurements like harmonic distortion at the same volume level, intermodulation distortion etc

BTW, I bet

m2 wins in the lows, S2 wins the highs
M2 wins at high volume , S2 wins at low volume
M2 wins for movies, and S2 wins for music
M2 wins dynamics, S2 wins soundstage

at the end of the day a tie, tipping towards the M2 as waveguides are all the rage right now, and of course the M2 is Master Reference
Agree with all but that one. The soundstage on properly setup M2's is simply massive and amazing. If S2 better it would be quite the experience.

I'll go with: M2 wins dynamics and soundstage
1201 likes this.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #224 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 08:51 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2744
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1201 View Post
There is a school of thought, and research, that would say this is incorrect.

Matter of Fact, that school may say that high peaks are ALL you hear.


from http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/doc/drc.html#htoc32
This is always a challenge. All perceptual models, however elaborate, attempt to replicate what humans can hear - they do not define what humans can hear. I played with primitive neurological models in my PhD sound localization work in the early '60s.

The simple fact is that humans can hear, and identify the sound of very high Q resonances. In the 1988 paper I referred to earlier, and in my books, it is clear that Q=50 resonances are recognizable and audible, but the thresholds of audibility are higher than for lower Q resonances - as measured in the frequency response. Part of the reason why the thresholds are high is that they occupy a small spectral footprint, meaning that a sound of a quite specific frequency must be present long enough to energize the resonances. It is basic physics. Such sounds are relatively rare in music, compared to lower Q resonances that can be energized by a wider range of frequencies. So, logically, the detectability of resonances is very dependent on the program material. Close miked rock and roll is very forgiving. As the spectral density increases and reverberation is included, thresholds drop. Reflections make us more sensitive to resonances - they are repetitions, giving the listener repeated "looks" at the sound.

The concept that critical bands, ERBn and such are measures of the resolution of the hearing system are faulty. They have meaning, but this is not it. This is discussed in my original book, and more elaborately in the new one.
notnyt and awediophile like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #225 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 09:42 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,234
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 788 Post(s)
Liked: 487
Perhaps jj will chime in and expand.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #226 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 10:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
CherylJosie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,504
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
In the 1988 paper I referred to earlier, and in my books, it is clear that Q=50 resonances are recognizable and audible, but the thresholds of audibility are higher than for lower Q resonances - as measured in the frequency response. Part of the reason why the thresholds are high is that they occupy a small spectral footprint, meaning that a sound of a quite specific frequency must be present long enough to energize the resonances. It is basic physics. Such sounds are relatively rare in music, compared to lower Q resonances that can be energized by a wider range of frequencies. So, logically, the detectability of resonances is very dependent on the program material. Close miked rock and roll is very forgiving. As the spectral density increases and reverberation is included, thresholds drop. Reflections make us more sensitive to resonances - they are repetitions, giving the listener repeated "looks" at the sound.
Does this have implications for the choice of programming at the shootout?
CherylJosie is offline  
post #227 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 12:13 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2744
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherylJosie View Post
Does this have implications for the choice of programming at the shootout?
Yes. There is music for "selling" and music for "shopping". Audiophile "demo" music is often simple closeup vocals or solo instruments which can be dramatic to listen to but is spectrally simple and frankly it can sound good through flawed loudspeakers. As the band gets more members, some reverb is added, and genuine bass and treble get into the mix, the challenge for loudspeakers is much increased. Voice, by itself is not very revealing of common problems.

John and Sean Olive are in touch about some up-to-date material that has passed the test.

Pink noise will reveal tiny differences, even though we are never quite sure what it should sound like. If there is a significant resonance it will be revealed, although it may or may not be audible in music or movies.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 08-08-2017 at 12:19 PM.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #228 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 12:33 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
This is always a challenge. All perceptual models, however elaborate, attempt to replicate what humans can hear - they do not define what humans can hear. I played with primitive neurological models in my PhD sound localization work in the early '60s.

The simple fact is that humans can hear, and identify the sound of very high Q resonances. In the 1988 paper I referred to earlier, and in my books, it is clear that Q=50 resonances are recognizable and audible, but the thresholds of audibility are higher than for lower Q resonances - as measured in the frequency response. Part of the reason why the thresholds are high is that they occupy a small spectral footprint, meaning that a sound of a quite specific frequency must be present long enough to energize the resonances. It is basic physics. Such sounds are relatively rare in music, compared to lower Q resonances that can be energized by a wider range of frequencies. So, logically, the detectability of resonances is very dependent on the program material. Close miked rock and roll is very forgiving. As the spectral density increases and reverberation is included, thresholds drop. Reflections make us more sensitive to resonances - they are repetitions, giving the listener repeated "looks" at the sound.
Thanks for making a point I've been meaning to make ... that the reason that lower Q resonances are more audible is simply that they are more readily energized by real content. The worst case, of course, would be music consisting of long-running pure tone sine waves. In that situation, we really can "hear" the frequency response as it would be measured at each ear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The concept that critical bands, ERBn and such are measures of the resolution of the hearing system are faulty. They have meaning, but this is not it. This is discussed in my original book, and more elaborately in the new one.
I look forward to reading your criticism of this concept. Though, I believe critical band theory actually is very useful. The point to realize is that just because the bands / ERBs may be only 1/3rd to 1/9th octave wide doesn't mean that we can't hear frequencies at higher resolution than that. So long as the sampling time interval of the hypothetical cochlear filter system is short enough, the brain has sufficient to information to assess frequency much more precisely than the bandwidth of the filters themselves.

I suspect that we can take away at least one useful piece of information from the critical band experiments. We may be able to conclude a rough upper bound on the temporal resolution of the hearing system. I believe the actual resolution is frequency dependent and may be approximately represented as a Gaussian time window whose Fourier transform is also a Gaussian with a 1/3rd octave bandwidth. This information can be used, in turn, to estimate the ability of the hearing system to independently resolve direct sound arrivals and reflections at different frequencies.

My own experiments, albeit based entirely on my own non-blind subjective judgment, suggest that 1/3rd octave is the optimal bandwidth to use for assessing the overall spectral balance of sound. Therefore, this is the resolution to use with frequency dependent windows (aka complex smoothing and not magnitude smoothing) when fitting in-room response to a desired target. Much higher resolutions do, of course, remain useful for assessing resonances, but 1/3rd octave is king for overall tonal balance.

My experiments suggest that the desired target for music is flat for most of the mids and highs, has a slight dip (maybe 1 dB or so) in the low mids/upper bass (very roughly 175-350 Hz), and slopes up several dB as frequency drops into the sub bass range. Presumably this target approximately reflects what happens to the first arrival sound from a "typical" speaker that measures flat under anechoic conditions and is placed near a floor but far away enough from the other boundaries that their reflections are easily distinguished by the hearing system until much lower frequencies (likely well into the modal region, in many cases). Interference with the floor creates the dip and subsequent rise in the sub bass range in the first arrival sound.

I can't recall where I found it, but I believe Harman has published a headphone target curve, which was determined using listener experiments. IIRC, its low frequency characteristics look very similar to the curve I describe above, including the slight upper bass / low mid dip.

Of course in reality, the region of the dip and rising bass response for an anechoic speaker placed in-room will vary substantially depending on the listener distance, the distance between the woofer(s) and floor, and crossover characteristics. However, mix and master engineers strive to achieve consistency in their work by comparing their work to existing content. In this way, the Circle of Confusion works to our advantage by reducing variation in tonal balance that might otherwise arise, even when using perfectly flat monitors, due to differences in driver orientation, room placement, and listener distance that impact sound below 500 Hz.

Last edited by awediophile; 08-08-2017 at 02:15 PM.
awediophile is offline  
post #229 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 01:42 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
LTD02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 835 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2919 Post(s)
Liked: 3624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Agree with all but that one. The soundstage on properly setup M2's is simply massive and amazing. If S2 better it would be quite the experience.

I'll go with: M2 wins dynamics and soundstage

upperbass and midrange sensitivity is on the order of 10db higher in the M2 (power handling is higher as well), so a proper characterization of this "shootout" would be akin to a modest load .22 going head to head with a hot loaded .44 magnum. if the .22 will get your job done, fine, but without taking each to the limit, significant performances differences may remain veiled.


how will soundstage be tested in a blinded mono comparison?

Listen. It's All Good.
LTD02 is offline  
post #230 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 02:13 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Yes. There is music for "selling" and music for "shopping". Audiophile "demo" music is often simple closeup vocals or solo instruments which can be dramatic to listen to but is spectrally simple and frankly it can sound good through flawed loudspeakers. As the band gets more members, some reverb is added, and genuine bass and treble get into the mix, the challenge for loudspeakers is much increased. Voice, by itself is not very revealing of common problems.

John and Sean Olive are in touch about some up-to-date material that has passed the test.

Pink noise will reveal tiny differences, even though we are never quite sure what it should sound like. If there is a significant resonance it will be revealed, although it may or may not be audible in music or movies.
These are interesting points. Another thing I've noticed is that more compressed / loud music is often more differentiating of linear response characteristics, especially when it contains many different parts. I think the lack of dynamics suppresses the attacks that otherwise make it easier to distinguish the different parts.

While it's frustrating that so much music is mastered to be loud instead of more dynamically natural, I do find that more accurate reproduction makes listening to this kind of music more enjoyable, even though it's easier to hear artifacts like pumping.
awediophile is offline  
post #231 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 02:33 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post
upperbass and midrange sensitivity is on the order of 10db higher in the M2 (power handling is higher as well), so a proper characterization of this "shootout" would be akin to a modest load .22 going head to head with a hot loaded .44 magnum. if the .22 will get your job done, fine, but without taking each to the limit, significant performances differences may remain veiled.


how will soundstage be tested in a blinded mono comparison?
Good question. Aspects of soundstage that depend on stereo reproduction obviously won't be tested. But I believe some aspects of soundstage are actually based on mono cues. In my experience, response of the last octave or so (especially above 15 kHz or so), both within that span and relative to the rest of the response, has a lot of influence on perceptions of depth of space.

Measurements suggest that the M2 and Salon 2 have some substantial differences at the highest frequencies. The directivity of the M2 narrows a lot faster than the Salon 2, but it appears to offer more overall output. Response on-axis actually ramps up toward the top. Opinions of the M2 in this respect may be more sharply divided depending on listener location with listeners on-axis getting a lot more upper frequency content than listeners off-axis. When I listened to the M2s in in John's room, I believe I was able to hear the beaming by moving my head from side-to-side. I'll probably want to avoid doing that during the blind tests because any hint as to which speaker I'm listening could spoil the rest of my assessment.
John Schuermann likes this.
awediophile is offline  
post #232 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 02:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 7,770
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3754 Post(s)
Liked: 2303
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
Agree with all but that one. The soundstage on properly setup M2's is simply massive and amazing. If S2 better it would be quite the experience.

I'll go with: M2 wins dynamics and soundstage

upperbass and midrange sensitivity is on the order of 10db higher in the M2 (power handling is higher as well), so a proper characterization of this "shootout" would be akin to a modest load .22 going head to head with a hot loaded .44 magnum. if the .22 will get your job done, fine, but without taking each to the limit, significant performances differences may remain veiled.


how will soundstage be tested in a blinded mono comparison?
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!

Last edited by Scotth3886; 08-08-2017 at 05:26 PM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #233 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 03:52 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 765 Post(s)
Liked: 2744
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTD02 View Post
upperbass and midrange sensitivity is on the order of 10db higher in the M2 (power handling is higher as well), so a proper characterization of this "shootout" would be akin to a modest load .22 going head to head with a hot loaded .44 magnum. if the .22 will get your job done, fine, but without taking each to the limit, significant performances differences may remain veiled.


how will soundstage be tested in a blinded mono comparison?
I guess you have to experience it to believe it. I did my first stereo vs mono test in 1985 and it was a very thorough and carefully conducted blind test. All of this is in JAES papers and in both books, so I won't get into regurgitating old research. The amazing reality is that listeners reported extensively on spatial/soundstage characteristics when listening in mono - which everyone, myself included, thought would be commented on only in stereo. The spatial ratings in mono closely tracked the sound quality ratings, and both were more strongly differentiated in mono than in stereo listening. We have learned since then that sound quality and spatial quality are closely linked.

In mono, the highest rated loudspeakers came closest to "disappearing" behind the screen, leaving impressions of image size and distance/depth to information in the recordings. Because stereo is mono L, mono R and double-mono amplitude and/or delay panned phantom images (including of course the featured artist), it is understandable that the soundstage is improved if one's attention is not drawn to the loudspeakers. This tends to be an advantage for wide dispersion loudspeakers. It was interesting to see that the mono ratings agreed with stereo ratings for close miked, pan potted stereo pop (truly multiple mono). With more complex pop and classical music there is a huge amount of uncorrelated information in both channels (to generate the desired spaciousness) and the spatial/soundstage ratings were not strongly differentiated. The dominant factor in the stereo tests was the recording itself, which, if you know how the signals are captured and processed, is not surprising. These are control room creations.

Over the years we have done a few stereo vs. mono tests to convince skeptics with the same result: the highest rated loudspeakers in mono, have been the highest rated loudspeakers in stereo but the differentiation in stereo was not always as easily discerned. Highly directional loudspeakers tend to stand out as lacking in both stereo and mono. Recently, the comparison has been expanded to multichannel, and it is even more forgiving than stereo. The more channels that are simultaneously active, the less the room interactions can be heard. But we listen in mono much of the time, in multi-mono stereo in non-classical music, a dominant center channel in movies and any time a signal is hard panned to a single channel. So how a loudspeaker sounds in mono matters, and mono tests yield the most critical comments. In stereo expect a speaker to be no worse, possibly better, but the stereo soundstage is definitely engaging
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #234 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 04:14 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
Don't forget, everyone, we will follow up the blind mono listening tests with stereo listening sessions of each speaker. The caveat is that these will not be blinded.

Idea being that it will be fun to just listen to stereo music with both excellent speakers once we go through the trials. A way of unwinding after the critical listening, if you will
Gary Sedlack, Gooddoc and sigpig like this.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #235 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 04:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,911
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1542 Post(s)
Liked: 859
This sounds like a great shootout of great speakers. Its nice to see some good words being said about measurements, Harman and Dr.Toole since most other audio manufactures refuse to provide any specs or measurements and operate solely on marketing.

I wish the Infiniti P363 was still being made and sold, I remember reading many good things about it on Sean Olive's blog and how it was the hidden gem of their lineup, at a price point of $100-150 each
Defcon is offline  
post #236 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 04:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Schuermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,729
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2001 Post(s)
Liked: 2497
All this talk, movies vs. music. As a sometime film composer, I must object. There is no "movies vs. music." Most films have LOTS of music in them.

It's the most important part of the soundtrack
RichB, gsr, openbaffled and 5 others like this.

John Schuermann
The Screening Room Home Theater Sales and Design
JS Music and Sound Film Scoring and Sound Design
John Schuermann is offline  
post #237 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 09:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,941
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
All this talk, movies vs. music. As a sometime film composer, I must object. There is no "movies vs. music." Most films have LOTS of music in them.

It's the most important part of the soundtrack
+1

Great cinematic scores are as responsible for telling the story as the director, actors, cinematographer, etc. The Lord of the Rings is a prime example.
openbaffled and Roctopuss like this.
Dbuudo07 is offline  
post #238 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 10:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1018 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Schuermann View Post
All this talk, movies vs. music. As a sometime film composer, I must object. There is no "movies vs. music." Most films have LOTS of music in them.

It's the most important part of the soundtrack
That sounds good and all but i find it kinda simplistic.

Film music has more dynamic range , thus the dynamics of a speaker play in.
Film music would be mixed or equalized on a system that has x-curved baked in. I dont know of any music studio that uses x curve for non film music

THANK YOU!!! for your selfless contribution to the audio world
Anders Torger for Brutefir
Thomas Drugeon for Rephase
John Mulcahy for room eq wizard
Denis Sbragion for DRC room correction
Juha Hartikainen for Winisd
1201 is offline  
post #239 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 10:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1018 Post(s)
Liked: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
This is always a challenge. All perceptual models, however elaborate, attempt to replicate what humans can hear - they do not define what humans can hear. I played with primitive neurological models in my PhD sound localization work in the early '60s.

The simple fact is that humans can hear, and identify the sound of very high Q resonances. In the 1988 paper I referred to earlier, and in my books, it is clear that Q=50 resonances are recognizable and audible, but the thresholds of audibility are higher than for lower Q resonances - as measured in the frequency response. Part of the reason why the thresholds are high is that they occupy a small spectral footprint, meaning that a sound of a quite specific frequency must be present long enough to energize the resonances. It is basic physics. Such sounds are relatively rare in music, compared to lower Q resonances that can be energized by a wider range of frequencies. So, logically, the detectability of resonances is very dependent on the program material. Close miked rock and roll is very forgiving. As the spectral density increases and reverberation is included, thresholds drop. Reflections make us more sensitive to resonances - they are repetitions, giving the listener repeated "looks" at the sound.

The concept that critical bands, ERBn and such are measures of the resolution of the hearing system are faulty. They have meaning, but this is not it. This is discussed in my original book, and more elaborately in the new one.
Hi Sir,

I think my post was essentially agreeing with yours that we need smaller fractional averaging . 1/6 from my experience will miss many peaks that are very audible
Floyd Toole likes this.

THANK YOU!!! for your selfless contribution to the audio world
Anders Torger for Brutefir
Thomas Drugeon for Rephase
John Mulcahy for room eq wizard
Denis Sbragion for DRC room correction
Juha Hartikainen for Winisd
1201 is offline  
post #240 of 1751 Old 08-08-2017, 10:52 PM
Senior Member
 
awediophile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 409
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1201 View Post
That sounds good and all but i find it kinda simplistic.

Film music has more dynamic range , thus the dynamics of a speaker play in.
Film music would be mixed or equalized on a system that has x-curved baked in. I dont know of any music studio that uses x curve for non film music
Hah! I thought you were going to write something like: "No it's not. The dialog is the most important part of the soundtrack."

To your points, film scores do not necessarily have more dynamic range than music. It does on average only because so many music mixes are made so loud.

In fact, mixes for cinema probably don't have nearly as much dynamic range as you'd think. Both the pink noise calibration method and X curve target contribute to a substantial reduction in effective dynamic range versus home presentations. I estimate that on a per-channel basis, after accounting for these effects, a cinema mix has about the same dynamic range as a K-14 music mix. The cinema does have a center channel, plus a couple of surrounds (albeit at -3 dB), but it must also share the space with dialog, sound effects, and ambiance tracks.

The X curve target does adversely effect the sound quality of movie soundtracks, when played in the home especially, but in the cinema too. Fortunately "home" mixes are becoming more common, and their quality seems to be improving. More of these mixes are being done in dedicated spaces and using higher quality monitors like the JBL M2s or 708s. Better monitors are more revealing of tonal balance problems, allowing mixers to correct these issues, leading to a superior audio experience in the home than is currently possible in cinemas.
awediophile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off