How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 146 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6077Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #4351 of 4908 Old 08-18-2019, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,022
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3483 Post(s)
Liked: 1967


couldnt of said it better.
jamesyates and Scotth3886 like this.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP

Last edited by torii; 08-18-2019 at 04:41 PM.
torii is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4352 of 4908 Old 08-18-2019, 04:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bear123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: PA
Posts: 6,333
Mentioned: 77 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2595 Post(s)
Liked: 4073
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
these spins show what is tested...everyone puts their speakers in a room with toe in etc....thus always changing what is tested.
Your failure to grasp the basis of what the NRC research shows is both humorous and tiresome. For goodness sake, we get it. You disagree with something you don't even comprehend despite the rather easy to grasp basic concepts.
Your incessant disagreement based on your lack of comprehension is ridiculous. We could take a moment to explain, but two pages later, you will just disagree again. But not for any good reason, but rather for a complete lack of understanding or acknowledgement of what the science is showing.
sdurani, DS-21, SunByrne and 7 others like this.
bear123 is online now  
post #4353 of 4908 Old 08-18-2019, 04:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,022
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3483 Post(s)
Liked: 1967
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post
Your failure to grasp the basis of what the NRC research shows is both humorous and tiresome. For goodness sake, we get it. You disagree with something you don't even comprehend despite the rather easy to grasp basic concepts.
Your incessant disagreement based on your lack of comprehension is ridiculous. We could take a moment to explain, but two pages later, you will just disagree again. But not for any good reason, but rather for a complete lack of understanding or acknowledgement of what the science is showing.

maybe I know what I know and just cant argue it well enough...see vid above from someone else.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4354 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 08:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
bodosom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Niagara Frontier
Posts: 9,503
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2037 Post(s)
Liked: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
maybe I know what I know and just cant argue it well enough.
I think you're missing the big picture here. The point of CTA-2034-A is that no matter what you do at home -- toe-in, toe-out, upside-down, put them driver down on the floor, leave them in the box -- if you start with a better (per 2034) speaker a statistically significant set of people will prefer it over an inferior (per 2034) speaker. Is it possible that under some circumstances an inferior speaker will be preferred? Presumably but research says that's sufficiently unlikely that it's not an efficient use of time to seek that speaker (and its complementary defects) out.

If you want to complain about something complain that companies (including Samsung) aren't using 2034 enough to help the speaker buying public make better decisions or that speaker buying is just too hard in general.
filecat13, dowop and motrek like this.

I might type 2K for 1080p.
UDP-203/ATV4K(6,2)/X3500/LG C8
bodosom is online now  
post #4355 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 11:21 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,721
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
A spinorama would not reveal everything of importance about the Larsen loudspeaker, which is an evolution of designs by Stig Carlsson, whom I visited in Stockholm in the 80s. Larsen worked with him for many years. It attempts to stabilize the stereo soundstage for multiple listeners by spraying the sound around in a specific - or non-specific - manner.

I discuss this type of loudspeaker in Section 15.3.1 of the 3rd edition.
Dr. Toole, can you please elaborate on this? It seems you are saying that the spinorama may not be the best tool to evaluate a speaker such as the Larsen loudspeaker?

From Section 15.3.1 of your book referring to the Carlsson loudspeakers, (which eventually became the Larsen loudspeaker):

Quote:
"These "ortho-directional (OD)" designs aimed at creating an active reflective sound field in rooms and, with the directional asymmetry, attempted to stabilize the stereo image over a larger listening area. I heard several existing and developmental models and all had varying degrees of success, depending greatly on the recording. All of them generated an active reflected sound field that solved the interaural crosstalk coloration. The randomized sounds arriving at the ears softened the images,which made movements of them less obvious. Steady state room curves were quite smooth and flat."
Although the "steady state room curves were quite smooth and flat," I would not expect the off-axis curves, which would have varying amounts of reflected energy, to also be so smooth and flat, especially with what you describe as "directional asymmetry." Therefore, I expect that their spinoramas would not be ideal.

In addition, since the spinorama is a single speaker, mono test, can it be useful to measure an effect that requires a pair of speakers in order to be realized? What would one look for in a spinorama to tell if the design goal of "stabilizing a stereo image over a larger listening area" has been achieved? Also, since the speaker literally requires the presence of a reflective back wall, how would one perform a spinorama in an anechoic chamber on such a speaker?

In a monophonic listening preference test, how would you expect such a speaker to perform?

If the spinorama would not reveal everything of importance about the Larsen loudspeaker, are there other loudspeakers that also are not adequately defined by the spinorama due to some intentional complexity in their dispersion characteristics, or any other intended design philosophy?

I can think of a few others:
  • Legacy Audio Whisper XDS: https://www.legacyaudio.com/products/view/whisper-xd/
    Quote:
    "Whisper XDS’s differential alignment is analogous to a dual element microphone. Signals from the two baffles are combined acoustically with time compensation to steer the low frequency wave-launch forward, while creating a progressively reduced acoustic output to the sides until reaching a null at 90 degree off axis. This eliminates boundary interactions from sidewalls, ceiling and floor. The gradient acoustic pressure reaching the listener at each ear contains far less room noise, allowing the brain to lock in on the natural ambience in the recording.
    The sweet spot is much wider with the Whisper XDS design, allowing the listener to move outside the left speaker and still hear a balance with the right speaker, and vice versa. The manual recommends a strong toe-in, to cast the strongest acoustic shadow across the face. It explains that the imprint of the shadow of the nose into the opposite ear is the other portion of the stereo signal that is usually washed out by excessive room reflections with conventional speakers."
  • Steinway Lyngdorf Model S: https://steinwaylyngdorf.com/steinway-sons-model-s/
    Quote:
    A key feature of the S-15 speaker is its innovative AER (Ambience Enhancing Radiation) dipole tweeter design. This design disperses the highest frequencies to the speaker’s sides, which produces a spacious and a life-like sound stage throughout the listening room, similar to the effect you get from our flagship Model D speaker or a live instrument.
  • Wisdom Audio Sage L150i Line Source In-Wall Loudspeaker: http://www.wisdomaudio.com/products/l150i/
    Quote:
    Radiation patterns and reflections
    Here we have a point source speaker in a room. Let’s see what happens when it plays sound.

    Sound radiates outward in all directions, “thinning out” quickly as it goes since it is expanding both vertically and horizontally. But what happens when it runs into the ceiling?

    It reflects back down and continues to spread out.

    The same thing also happens off the floor. Carpeting can help attenuate the reflection a bit at the highest frequencies, above about 10 kHz or so. But it helps less than most people think.

    And of course, the same thing happens off the wall behind the speakers. Once again, this reflection has less energy in the highest frequencies, but it is a strong reflection. (If you were to stand behind a speaker playing out in the middle of an open field, you would still hear lots of sound, without any reflections.)

    And of course, all this is happening at the same time. It presents your ears with a lot of confused, delayed versions of the original signal, along with the direct sound you’d like to hear.


    On the other hand, when you have a line source (especially if it is mounted in or on the wall, eliminating the reflection from behind the speaker), things get much simpler.

    Because the driver is extremely tall and narrow, the sound radiates outward in an expanding cylinder, as though from a line in space. Thus the sound is spread widely through the room from side to side, but not vertically. In fact, because the sound is concentrated where your ears are, it does not “thin out” nearly as fast, and you have surprisingly uniform SPL throughout the listening space. People sitting near the speakers and far away hear pretty much the same volume. This fact alone opens up the “sweet spot” significantly, since you no longer have to be on the center line between the speakers to hear them at the same volume.
    The sweet spot gets even bigger because there are many fewer reflections confusing your ears. All those ceiling and floor reflections essentially disappear from about 530 Hz up. This range of frequencies include almost all the information our brains use to determine spatial cues (imaging, depth, a sense of space, etc.)

    Since true line source arrays effectively eliminate floor and ceiling reflections, they are especially valuable for large rooms or those with architectural challenges including cathedral or coffered ceilings, hard floors, etc. But their singular benefit is heard in any room: you hear more of the speaker and less of the room. Everything is significantly clearer.
    Go ahead, walk around the room…
    It is rather uncanny, but line sources do not seem to get much louder as you get closer to them. This bears some explanation.
    Most speakers in this world are point sources, whose sound expands away from the speaker as an ever-enlarging sphere. The reason for this is that the vibrating diaphragm is small compared to the sound waves it is producing. The sound spreads out like ripples from a pebble thrown into a pond… except in three dimensions.
    When the vibrating diaphragm approaches the size of the sound wave it is producing, the sound becomes more directional, moving away from the speaker like a spotlight instead of a floodlight.
    When you have an extremely tall and narrow driver like those in our tallest speakers, the sound radiates outward in a cylindrical fashion. This is because the width of the diaphragm is small compared to the sound waves (wide dispersion), while the height of the diaphragm is large (resulting in controlled directivity in the vertical plane).
    Because more of the sound is being focused where your ears are (somewhere in the horizontal plane of the speaker, not up on the ceiling or down on the floor), the difference in volume as you move away from the speaker is significantly less. In technical terms, it falls off in a linear way rather than as the square of the distance.
All 3 of these speakers have very unconventional designs, with radiation patterns that would likely not allow them to have great spinoramas. (I have not seen spins on any of these speakers, but I would not expect their spins to meet the criteria, but maybe I'm wrong?) All 3 also make an attempt to widen the sweet spot for multiple listeners. I have heard all 3 of these speakers and I would give them all an A+ for sound quality. In fact the Wisdom Audio Line Arrays are the very best speakers I've ever heard. Certainly these listening experiences were not "blind" but they were so over-the-top excellent that I have little doubt that being able to see the speakers made any difference in my impressions.

I guess my bottom line question is: Are there speakers, (like the Larsen's and others), that are not amenable to spinoramas, but have some "redeeming social value," such that they can still be "preferred" loudspeakers?

Thanks for your insights.

Craig
Gooddoc and Scotth3886 like this.

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
post #4356 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 11:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
^^^^^ Thank you Craig ^^^^^

I didn't bring it up 'again' because I don't feel like yet another knock down drag out argument until I get my 63 detailed up from the trip to Woodward Dream Cruise. But yeah, I would suspect that a speaker I would prefer to do what I require, would have a pretty lousy spinomatic in the eyes of the fanbois. In other words, high directivity from a line source. Irreconcilable differences I guess.

So back to the garage.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4357 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 11:59 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 805
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Dr. Toole, can you please elaborate on this? It seems you are saying that the spinorama may not be the best tool to evaluate a speaker such as the Larsen loudspeaker?

From Section 15.3.1 of your book referring to the Carlsson loudspeakers, (which eventually became the Larsen loudspeaker):

Although the "steady state room curves were quite smooth and flat," I would not expect the off-axis curves, which would have varying amounts of reflected energy, to also be so smooth and flat, especially with what you describe as "directional asymmetry." Therefore, I expect that their spinoramas would not be ideal.

In addition, since the spinorama is a single speaker, mono test, can it be useful to measure an effect that requires a pair of speakers in order to be realized? What would one look for in a spinorama to tell if the design goal of "stabilizing a stereo image over a larger listening area" has been achieved? Also, since the speaker literally requires the presence of a reflective back wall, how would one perform a spinorama in an anechoic chamber on such a speaker?

In a monophonic listening preference test, how would you expect such a speaker to perform?

If the spinorama would not reveal everything of importance about the Larsen loudspeaker, are there other loudspeakers that also are not adequately defined by the spinorama due to some intentional complexity in their dispersion characteristics, or any other intended design philosophy?

I can think of a few others:
All 3 of these speakers have very unconventional designs, with radiation patterns that would likely not allow them to have great spinoramas. (I have not seen spins on any of these speakers, but I would not expect their spins to meet the criteria, but maybe I'm wrong?) All 3 also make an attempt to widen the sweet spot for multiple listeners. I have heard all 3 of these speakers and I would give them all an A+ for sound quality. In fact the Wisdom Audio Line Arrays are the very best speakers I've ever heard. Certainly these listening experiences were not "blind" but they were so over-the-top excellent that I have little doubt that being able to see the speakers made any difference in my impressions.

I guess my bottom line question is: Are there speakers, (like the Larsen's and others), that are not amenable to spinoramas, but have some "redeeming social value," such that they can still be "preferred" loudspeakers?

Thanks for your insights.

Craig
The spinorama is undisguised as being most appropriate for conventional forward firing speakers, but also highly revealing for omnis, dipoles and bipoles. In short it applies without modification to the vast majority of products.

Speakers such as the ones you describe can be interrogated using anechoic measurements - using a 2-pi chamber for those requiring a boundary - and looking at the same criteria: direct sound, early reflected sound and sound power. Those that attempt image stabilization are more of a problem because what they are attempting to do cannot be perfectly done. The underlying assumption of a time/intensity trade is different for different kinds of sounds, varying with frequency and temporal envelope. Spraying the sound around blurs the image, making listeners less fussy.

Still a lot of listeners over the years have found them attractive. Just note that is is not the stereo that was created in the studio - it is a "sound effect".
Gooddoc and Karl Maga like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #4358 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 12:48 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,721
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1270 Post(s)
Liked: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The spinorama is undisguised as being most appropriate for conventional forward firing speakers, but also highly revealing for omnis, dipoles and bipoles. In short it applies without modification to the vast majority of products.

Speakers such as the ones you describe can be interrogated using anechoic measurements - using a 2-pi chamber for those requiring a boundary - and looking at the same criteria: direct sound, early reflected sound and sound power. Those that attempt image stabilization are more of a problem because what they are attempting to do cannot be perfectly done. The underlying assumption of a time/intensity trade is different for different kinds of sounds, varying with frequency and temporal envelope. Spraying the sound around blurs the image, making listeners less fussy.

Still a lot of listeners over the years have found them attractive. Just note that is is not the stereo that was created in the studio - it is a "sound effect".
Thanks! I wasn't aware that 2-pi anechoic chambers existed.

In thinking about the Wilson Line Array dispersion pattern a little more, it seems likely that they could, in fact, have very good spins. Would the acoustic center of the column be used as it's primary axis, with the verticals measured above and below that axis? If so, what would be the expected results above and below the top and bottom of the columns and how would that affect the spins?

With the Legacy Whispers, how would the 90 degree nulls in the bass affect the spins? Would this negatively impact the spins, but actually be beneficial in a room?

The little Steinway Lyngdorf's use a dipole tweeter arrangement. Dipoles usually have at null at 90 degrees, which in this case, is in the on-axis response. How would you expect them to measure in a spin?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!

Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System
craig john is offline  
post #4359 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 01:47 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 805
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Thanks! I wasn't aware that 2-pi anechoic chambers existed.

In thinking about the Wilson Line Array dispersion pattern a little more, it seems likely that they could, in fact, have very good spins. Would the acoustic center of the column be used as it's primary axis, with the verticals measured above and below that axis? If so, what would be the expected results above and below the top and bottom of the columns and how would that affect the spins?

With the Legacy Whispers, how would the 90 degree nulls in the bass affect the spins? Would this negatively impact the spins, but actually be beneficial in a room?

The little Steinway Lyngdorf's use a dipole tweeter arrangement. Dipoles usually have at null at 90 degrees, which in this case, is in the on-axis response. How would you expect them to measure in a spin?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!

Craig
The Wilsons: Line sources are discussed in Section 10.5.2 in my book. A floor-to-ceiling array is ideal. Less than this and there is a near-field/far field effect. It is in the book or in the references. See also Figure 9.14. If listening within the near field, there is theoretically no vertical dispersion, so only horizontal measurements are required - and it would have to be done in a 2-pi free field.

Inspired by my book, a colleague of mine built an elaborate 5.1 system using floor-to-ceiling cone/dome loudspeakers. installed flush with the surface of the walls. It was very impressive, with "limitless" sound output with so many transducers to share the load.

The Legacy: one might hope for more technical details. However, anything happening at bass frequencies is inseparable from the room and so must be evaluated in-situ.

It is not clear to me what the Lyngdorf speakers are doing - I didn't look very hard - but they imply "boundary" effects so it may be another case of needing a 2-pi measurement. If the tweeter is a dipole it looks as though it is very close to the wall - interesting - why? As for dipoles, in measurements they are revealed as having a 3.4 dB DI, if I recall correctly. Any off-axis performance attributes that matter will be revealed in the "early reflections" curves. In the raw data underlying the spinorama one can choose to see horizontal and vertical data separately for engineering purposes.

It is a struggle to be good, and distinctive - to stand out from the crowd. Sometimes one takes precedence over the other. Those that can achieve both are the exceptions, and if the distinctive factor is real, it should be widely accepted and become the new norm. Still waiting . . .
DS-21 and buckchester like this.

Last edited by Floyd Toole; 08-19-2019 at 01:59 PM.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #4360 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 01:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,729
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3736 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
The little Steinway Lyngdorf's use a dipole tweeter arrangement. Dipoles usually have at null at 90 degrees, which in this case, is in the on-axis response. How would you expect them to measure in a spin?
The dipoles I used as surround speakers were terrible IMO, I would never want something like that as a main. But that's just me.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #4361 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 01:51 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
The dipoles I used as surround speakers were terrible IMO, I would never want something like that as a main. But that's just me.
I wouldn't want anything but, but but in only one of my systems, well maybe in two. Just too difficult.
Gooddoc likes this.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4362 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 02:08 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 805
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
The dipoles I used as surround speakers were terrible IMO, I would never want something like that as a main. But that's just me.
"Dipole" surround speakers were a dreadful idea, even in the day of 4-channel surround when they were originated by THX as a marketing/licensing ploy. They were not true dipoles - better described as bidirectional-out-of-phase, exhibiting massive acoustical interference effects.

"Dipole" surround loudspeakers are highly colored, in addition to not achieving their advertised goal. See section 15.8.3 in the 3rd edition for measurements.

In contrast well designed true dipole speakers are legitimate alternatives for general use.
Gooddoc, Scotth3886 and overg like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #4363 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 02:37 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
"Dipole" surround speakers were a dreadful idea, even in the day of 4-channel surround when they were originated by THX as a marketing/licensing ploy. They were not true dipoles - better described as bidirectional-out-of-phase, exhibiting massive acoustical interference effects.

"Dipole" surround loudspeakers are highly colored, in addition to not achieving their advertised goal. See section 15.8.3 in the 3rd edition for measurements.

In contrast well designed true dipole speakers are legitimate alternatives for general use.
Although, I've used dipoles in at least one of my systems since 1959, most of my speakers have had been monopoles of various brands over the years. I find with enough work regarding placement, I can get dipoles to do some pretty cool things with 'real' stereo, not that which is created in a studio, but the placement difficulty this time made it mostly not worth it.

What I haven't tried in the last 45 years or so are omnis. I've owned Ohm As and Fs back whenever they were first introduced, but can't remember one way or another with regards to sound quality.

What do you think of a device such as MBLs? I've never particularly liked the large models, the Extremes, due to imaging issues, but very much do the smaller ones such as the 120s and 116s.

Theoretically, one would have no degradation in FR off axis, because to a true omni, there would be no off axis?
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4364 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 02:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Steve Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Posts: 2,038
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
There is a lot of info on the internet - try Google. I found this article to be informative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539655/



EDIT. Another: Hyperacusis.net


That’s fairly good article. Some time before the age of 50 I developed hyperacusis, which was non-syndromic (not caused by any known infirmity). High-frequency sounds became very painful to hear, even at low volume. Soon I had to mostly abandon my favorite hobby—listening to music. Often I couldn’t stand to be near live music, especially if it featured cymbals or other high-frequency percussion, or bowed instruments such as violins. Sometimes just being out in public was painful. It was stressful and depressing.

Eventually, I decided to try tinnitus retraining therapy, as suggested by a hyperacusis clinic run at a hospital in Portland, OR. This involved being fitted with hearing aid-like devices that constantly inject wideband noise into the ears at fairly low volume, adjustable by the user. I wore these for several years, all day every day. Over time I became better able to stand high frequency sounds, and to listen to music and movies. These days I am more troubled by tinnitus than hyperacusis.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Steve Goff
Steve Goff is online now  
post #4365 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 02:58 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 805
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 837 Post(s)
Liked: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Goff View Post
That’s fairly good article. Some time before the age of 50 I developed hyperacusis, which was non-syndromic (not caused by any known infirmity). High-frequency sounds became very painful to hear, even at low volume. Soon I had to mostly abandon my favorite hobby—listening to music. Often I couldn’t stand to be near live music, especially if it featured cymbals or other high-frequency percussion, or bowed instruments such as violins. Sometimes just being out in public was painful. It was stressful and depressing.

Eventually, I decided to try tinnitus retraining therapy, as suggested by a hyperacusis clinic run at a hospital in Portland, OR. This involved being fitted with hearing aid-like devices that constantly inject wideband noise into the ears at fairly low volume, adjustable by the user. I wore these for several years, all day every day. Over time I became better able to stand high frequency sounds, and to listen to music and movies. These days I am more troubled by tinnitus than hyperacusis.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Having your problems for a music lover would be torture. Sorry, but it is good that some "recovery" is possible.

I have tinnitus, a constant high frequency narrow band "hiss". I ignore it until I think about it. It goes up and down with who knows what as a
cause. I have tried to correlate it but failed - salt and booze maybe. I moderate but won't quit either of them

I don't seem to have overt hyperacusis, but there is no doubt that my preferred listening levels have gone down. My wife has significant hearing loss and aids, and she is definitely suffering from hyperacusis. There is a narrow dynamic range for comfortable listening. I do my personal movies and music in another room, with the door closed.

This getting old business can be complicated.
krabapple and bearr48 like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #4366 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 03:20 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Steve Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Posts: 2,038
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 449 Post(s)
Liked: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Having your problems for a music lover would be torture. Sorry, but it is good that some "recovery" is possible.



I have tinnitus, a constant high frequency narrow band "hiss". I ignore it until I think about it. It goes up and down with who knows what as a

cause. I have tried to correlate it but failed - salt and booze maybe. I moderate but won't quit either of them



I don't seem to have overt hyperacusis, but there is no doubt that my preferred listening levels have gone down. My wife has significant hearing loss and aids, and she is definitely suffering from hyperacusis. There is a narrow dynamic range for comfortable listening. I do my personal movies and music in another room, with the door closed.



This getting old business can be complicated.


My tinnitus is likewise a narrow-band hiss. It’s mostly missing in the morning and gets worse as the day goes on.

I was happy when I could start attending symphonic concerts again. That came before other music, probably because higher frequencies are attenuated by the air between the instruments and the listener. Since then we’ve traveled around the country listening to great orchestras in great halls, that is until my lumbar spinal stenosis required surgery (a laminectomy) a few months ago. Yes, getting old sucks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Steve Goff
Steve Goff is online now  
post #4367 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 03:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,195
Mentioned: 148 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3719 Post(s)
Liked: 2940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The spinorama is undisguised as being most appropriate for conventional forward firing speakers, but also highly revealing for omnis, dipoles and bipoles. In short it applies without modification to the vast majority of products.

Speakers such as the ones you describe can be interrogated using anechoic measurements - using a 2-pi chamber for those requiring a boundary - and looking at the same criteria: direct sound, early reflected sound and sound power. Those that attempt image stabilization are more of a problem because what they are attempting to do cannot be perfectly done. The underlying assumption of a time/intensity trade is different for different kinds of sounds, varying with frequency and temporal envelope. Spraying the sound around blurs the image, making listeners less fussy.

Still a lot of listeners over the years have found them attractive. Just note that is is not the stereo that was created in the studio - it is a "sound effect".
I wonder if much of what some seem to find lacking in certain speakers that measure really well are various "sound effects" beyond fundamental accuracy measurements? This would help explain why some are so skeptical about the validity of speaker measurements in helping clearly define the speakers that are going to sound best to them. If one was especially attracted to a specific "sound effect" they might even prefer a less accurate speaker with that effect to a more accurate speaker without it.
Dave in Green is online now  
post #4368 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 04:40 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,022
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3483 Post(s)
Liked: 1967
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear123 View Post
Your failure to grasp the basis of what the NRC research shows is both humorous and tiresome. For goodness sake, we get it. You disagree with something you don't even comprehend despite the rather easy to grasp basic concepts.
Your incessant disagreement based on your lack of comprehension is ridiculous. We could take a moment to explain, but two pages later, you will just disagree again. But not for any good reason, but rather for a complete lack of understanding or acknowledgement of what the science is showing.

the tiresome comments of science says this is best gets tiresome. I argue that it isnt best measuring speaker is best for all. Im not saying science isnt good, its appreciated...but it doesnt mean flattest measuring speakers in chamber perform the best. far from it....I argued the scientific method being flawed(i get its best they could do, but far from perfect)...get laughed at...I argue my ears dont hear the better measuring speakers better(I get ridiculed/dismissed)...I post a vid from andrew jones and crickets....I never said x speaker was bad....glad it works....I have owned 20+ pairs of speakers....my opinion dont matter on this thread. I let it go....peace.

Power: Marantz sr7008, NAD C 275Bee x 2, Video: Oppo 103, Samsung 75un6300
Speakers: Focal aria 948, Focal cc900, Klipsch synergy KSF 10.5, Magnepan LRS
Subs: Rythmik FV25HP, Rythmik FV15HP
torii is online now  
post #4369 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 04:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drewTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Posts: 4,577
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2063 Post(s)
Liked: 2189
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
Amen to this. Andrew Jones gets it.

LG OLED65E8 | Plinius Hiato | Dynaudio Contour 20 | Dynaudio Stand 6 | REL T/9i | PS Audio DirectStream Junior | Furman IT-Reference 15i | Sony PS4 Pro | Synology DS916+ | Apple TV 4K | BDI Mirage | NEEO | Focal Shape 40 | iFi Pro iDSD | iFi Pro iRack | roon
drewTT is offline  
post #4370 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 05:01 PM
Oppo Beta Group
 
RichB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 11,121
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1910 Post(s)
Liked: 1403
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
Here are my notes from the video (I may have got some wrong but I tried .

Quote:

Measurements are used to obtain the objective:

- Flat response
- Directivity goals
- Smooth gentle off axis
- Taste - designer skews toward preferred errors.

It is difficult to determine what speakers are supposed to sound like due the lack of mastering standards.

AES (I think) examined EQ during recording - inverse of the room.

Do consumers care what it should sound like?

He is now a heretic compared to his earlier beliefs.

Goal at shows is to show what is possible when you combine room, electronics, recordings and his speakers

In theory, more expensive speakers should get closer to perfection but this does not happen (in many cases)

Speakers with greater directivity can have more detail in rooms due to the masking effect of reflected sound.
It was interesting but I did not hear anything that contradicts the science presented here.

ELAC is financially successful and that is perfectly fine but that is not audio science at all. I think the success is based on innovation with coaxial drivers, price point, and some fealty to the design goals expressed at the beginning of the video that seem to be aligned with "what science shows".

There is some excellent innovation and talent in making design choices (defect management) to produce an affordable speaker line that benefit from coaxial drivers. These have issues but that is all part of the preferred errors. The concept of deviation as errors acknowledges the correctness of a goal.

There was significant time spend discussion of mastering that is what Toole calls the "circle of confusion" with lots of hand waving.

The electronic discussion may reflect that some of the ELAC line perform best with amplification that can handle 4 ohm loads.
That can be a problem when low cost speakers are paired with low cost electronics.

- Rich
Soulburner and Karl Maga like this.

Oppo UPD-205 x 2 | UPD-203 | Sonica DAC | Emotiva XMC-1 (v3) | Revel Salon2s, Voice2, Studio2s | Benchmark AHB2 x 4 | ATI AT522NC | Velodyne HGS-15 | LG 77C9 | Lumagen 2020 | HDFury Vertex x 2
RichB is online now  
post #4371 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 05:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,252
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 833 Post(s)
Liked: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
the tiresome comments of science says this is best gets tiresome. I argue that it isnt best measuring speaker is best for all. Im not saying science isnt good, its appreciated...but it doesnt mean flattest measuring speakers in chamber perform the best. far from it....I argued the scientific method being flawed(i get its best they could do, but far from perfect)...get laughed at...I argue my ears dont hear the better measuring speakers better(I get ridiculed/dismissed)...I post a vid from andrew jones and crickets....I never said x speaker was bad....glad it works....I have owned 20+ pairs of speakers....my opinion dont matter on this thread. I let it go....peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewTT View Post
Amen to this. Andrew Jones gets it.
He's not saying anything in this video that is in contrast to what the research at Harman has concluded. He's basically talking about the original recorded event and how we reproduce it in loudspeakers, it's part of the circle of confusion Dr. Toole talks about all the time. Since we can't do anything about that, what we can do is buy the most neutral speakers we can find to play back that recording as faithfully as we can. I hope you guys did more than just read the headline to the video.
RichB, sdurani, DS-21 and 4 others like this.
aarons915 is online now  
post #4372 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 05:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
He's not saying anything in this video that is in contrast to what the research at Harman has concluded. He's basically talking about the original recorded event and how we reproduce it in loudspeakers, it's part of the circle of confusion Dr. Toole talks about all the time. Since we can't do anything about that, what we can do is buy the most neutral speakers we can find to play back that recording as faithfully as we can. I hope you guys did more than just read the headline to the video.
Also, exactly what I've been talking about since I've been here.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4373 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 07:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,744
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1560
For those in the back...what is the goal of a speaker? It's to produce an output that matches the input signal, right? What is the input signal? Your music, movie, or other program.

So, what would a measurement look like of an output that matched the input signal? As in, hearing the recording exactly as created? Clearly, it would be a flat line that you dub "zero".

Any deviation from zero is an error and is essentially adding equalization, or coloration if you will, to all of your programs. It is not what the recording engineer or artist intended it to sound like.

If perfect response does not sound good to you, it's not the fault of the speaker, or the science that helped to create it. The science is not flawed - the recording is. And, the science of creating accurate speakers should only put pressure on studios to adopt standards, as the home listening environment that engineers are aiming for, improves and becomes less of a moving target.

Unfortunately we have car audio and bluetooth boombox targets now as well, which are like boat anchors holding back the ship of sound quality.

And what about reflection-free in-ear-monitors? If you were to imagine that to hear a recording directly means adding no reflections to the sound, as presumably any ambience was already added by the recording engineer, then only in-ear-monitors would suffice for accuracy. With speakers, your room would be coloring the sound. If, on the other hand, the recording engineer or artist intends for the listener's room acoustics to add the desired ambience, then you will only find accuracy within an average home room. In that case, listening on IEM's would reveal a very unnatural recording.

The problem is we will never know the intent of the engineer or artist, so it's best not to add our own colorations with non-neutral speakers, with a response that we are stuck with no matter the program. I'd argue it's best to aim for a flat and smooth response as the NRC and Harman research revealed, with an allowance to adjust for taste or to tame a bright or dull recording. After all, you need to enjoy the sound, and maybe you have hearing loss, or hyperacusis, and/or a decision by a recording engineer isn't agreeing with your ears. It's much better to do this with EQ or tone controls than to start with colored speakers, otherwise you'll be even further from the target. Ideally, over time, the need for this would decrease, but there are so many different playback devices now, all with their own capabilities and shortcomings, that I think this is the way it's going to be.
brauerm likes this.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)

Last edited by Soulburner; 08-19-2019 at 07:08 PM.
Soulburner is offline  
post #4374 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 07:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post
...
It was interesting but I did not hear anything that contradicts the science presented here.
...
Indeed. I thought I heard him say that he used to be 100% in the "measurement camp" but his views had changed, but he didn't seem to say anything about measurements being bad or anything about how his design goals have changed. So I'm not sure what camp he thinks he's in now.

He makes a lot of sense re: errors. If you have the option to make two different speakers, and they measure differently, but about as well as each other, which design do you go with? I guess you've got no choice but to listen to them.

He lost me re: high end speakers not sounding the same. I guess I haven't listened to a lot of top-quality speakers but I'd be surprised if they don't all sound pretty much the same? I mean, the speakers that measure well. Not talking about expensive speakers that measure poorly.
Scotth3886 likes this.
motrek is offline  
post #4375 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 07:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
This one is also good


min 7:45
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4376 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 07:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,082
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3908 Post(s)
Liked: 2395
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Indeed. I thought I heard him say that he used to be 100% in the "measurement camp" but his views had changed, but he didn't seem to say anything about measurements being bad or anything about how his design goals have changed. So I'm not sure what camp he thinks he's in now.

He makes a lot of sense re: errors. If you have the option to make two different speakers, and they measure differently, but about as well as each other, which design do you go with? I guess you've got no choice but to listen to them.

He lost me re: high end speakers not sounding the same. I guess I haven't listened to a lot of top-quality speakers but I'd be surprised if they don't all sound pretty much the same? I mean, the speakers that measure well. Not talking about expensive speakers that measure poorly.
Surprisingly, not. Quite different, and I think the differences manifests itself most in the 'min 7:45' aspects I referenced in the vid I just posted.

Scotth3886 is offline  
post #4377 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 08:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,729
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3736 Post(s)
Liked: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
"Dipole" surround loudspeakers are highly colored, in addition to not achieving their advertised goal.
I drank the advertising koolaid
Gooddoc is offline  
post #4378 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 08:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,744
Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1560
Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
Indeed. I thought I heard him say that he used to be 100% in the "measurement camp" but his views had changed, but he didn't seem to say anything about measurements being bad or anything about how his design goals have changed. So I'm not sure what camp he thinks he's in now.

He makes a lot of sense re: errors. If you have the option to make two different speakers, and they measure differently, but about as well as each other, which design do you go with? I guess you've got no choice but to listen to them.
I heard him talk about how hard it is to design a speaker that meets the ideal, not making a statement about any camp he's in. It was actually more about the challenge of designing a speaker with a moving target (recording studio differences).

Quote:
Originally Posted by motrek View Post
He lost me re: high end speakers not sounding the same. I guess I haven't listened to a lot of top-quality speakers but I'd be surprised if they don't all sound pretty much the same? I mean, the speakers that measure well. Not talking about expensive speakers that measure poorly.
Small changes to a frequency range, even a decibel here and there, make a speaker sound different, as do differences in directivity. Then there's distortion, impulse, speaker height...rare that two speakers share enough attributes that they sound the same. It certainly happens more often within a brand (JBL M2, 708), but that's not taking into account power handling and things like that.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is offline  
post #4379 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 09:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Russia
Posts: 275
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 196 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

The electronic discussion may reflect that some of the ELAC line perform best with amplification that can handle 4 ohm loads.
That can be a problem when low cost speakers are paired with low cost electronics.

- Rich
I don't think cheap amps have problem driving 4 Ohms today.
Here is an example: https://www.crownaudio.com/en/products/xls-1002
That is $170 per channel of amplification.

Don't know how it sounds (I would guess it is not exactly a champion on a benchmark), but there is no problem in driving 4 Ohm for cheap now in terms of power.
Probably there are cheaper things, but this one is rated at 2 Ohm, which looks like it will guarantee ability to perform at 4 Ohm. It has a fan, but in 708i thread people were saying it very quite.
For 2 Ohms there can be some argument, not every amp can drive 2 Ohms, especially with phase turns, but 2 Ohms are quite rare if you don't connect speakers in parallel.

Last edited by aats; 08-19-2019 at 09:37 PM.
aats is offline  
post #4380 of 4908 Old 08-19-2019, 11:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
motrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 643
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I heard him talk about how hard it is to design a speaker that meets the ideal, not making a statement about any camp he's in. It was actually more about the challenge of designing a speaker with a moving target (recording studio differences).
Those were parts of it but he also talked about how his views have changed.

Quote:
Small changes to a frequency range, even a decibel here and there, make a speaker sound different, as do differences in directivity. Then there's distortion, impulse, speaker height...rare that two speakers share enough attributes that they sound the same. It certainly happens more often within a brand (JBL M2, 708), but that's not taking into account power handling and things like that.
I suppose what I was thinking of is Dr. Toole talking about how the top speakers will basically tie each other in terms of listener preference, which I suppose is different than saying they sound the same. Point taken.
motrek is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
cea 2034 , double-blind , listening tests , loudspeaker measurements , spinorama

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