How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 15 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 5615Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 4390 Old 01-03-2019, 09:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,556
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3448 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
Wow, this has been tedious trying to catch up. A couple of comments.

Floyd Toole did a lot of research before he ever went to Harman. It has been said multiple times. I am not sure how many speaker companies use the research from his pre - Harman days, but I am guessing there are more than a few. This isn't new information, as I first remember reading about it from Lynn Olson like twenty years ago. He described it in his Major Schools of Speaker Design.
Quote:
Flat Response (The Objective-Design School)

Most British and Canadian speakers fall in this group. They are characterized by flat frequency response, with the BBC British school assigning the greatest importance to the 2 meter on-axis response curve combined with freedom from delayed resonance, and the NRC Canadian school assigning priority to the frequency response averaged over a forward-facing hemisphere. These design priorities have been arrived at by BBC broadcast professionals and NRC listening panels respectively.

This school of design is most closely identified with an "objective" engineering-oriented philosophy. Not by accident, engineers with masters and doctorates in acoustics tend to design speakers using this philosophy. These folks are not going to be sympathetic to exotic wires, resistors, capacitors, the directly-heated triode mystique, or anything not audible on a repeatable basis to a double-blind listening panel.

D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC was the first to accurately measure and identify sources of driver and cabinet resonances in the late 1950’s, and many British speakers continue excel in this area as a lasting legacy of the BBC philosophy. Since resonances may be audible as far as 20 dB below a conventional sine-wave response curve, the BBC became the first organization to identify and measure colorations that were completely invisible on conventional swept sine-wave measurement systems.

It took American designers 20 years to acknowledge the importance of these "hidden" colorations; the real breakthrough on this side of the pond happened when Richard Heyser invented the Time-Delay Spectrometry system in the early 1970’s, first embodied in the Techron TEF test unit. Ten years later, Lip****z and Vanderkooy invented the "Maximum Length Sequence System Analyzer," which was commercialized by DRA Labs as a one-piece board that could fit into any standard PC. In the space of thirty years, measurement of delayed resonance went from a special-purpose instrument used only within the BBC, a dedicated $150,000 HP FFT minicomputer used by KEF, a $12,000 TEF unit made by Crown, to a $3,500 MLSSA board that plugs in to any PC.

At the time of writing, the MLSSA remains the time-and-frequency measurement tool of choice for major manufacturers. If your are primarily interested in frequency response, and don’t care about interpreting the arcana of step responses and waterfall graphs, the $1000 LMS unit is a better choice. The LMS is widely used for quality control in production, since it is easy to set up with "go/no go" limits on frequency response. Another interesting unit is the CLIO, which appears to have similar time-and-frequency performance to the MLSSA, with the additional bonus of 16-bit accuracy and a $1600 price-tag (which includes microphone).

In the last two years, software packages that utilize the top grade of PC sound cards have become available, reducing costs below $600. If you’re curious about these hardware/software packages, refer to the ads in the latest issue of "AudioXpress" magazine. The PC sound-card measurement field is changing so quickly that anything I put in here will be obsolete by the time it’s printed. The one "gotcha" with most sound cards is a maximum sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz; to accurately measure the impulse response of a tweeter, the anti-alias filter preceding the digital converter must have a relatively gentle slope (Bessel or Butterworth), and this dictates in turn a sampling frequency of 96kHz or higher. If the sound-card vendor is evasive about the maximum sampling frequency or the slope of anti-alias filter, don’t buy it.

Moving on to the difficult area of crossover design, objective-school designers usually prefer 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley networks, which offer the flattest, most accurate response curve and the best control of out-of-band IM distortion (at the expense of pulse distortion and overshoot).

Laurie Fincham of KEF deserves credit for pioneering the use of a computer to accurately model the combined electroacoustic behaviour of the driver and the crossover network, allowing accurate synthesis and optimization of acoustical 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-order rolloffs. Prior to Fincham’s work, crossover design was a matter of "bending" standard textbook crossovers to get a rough approximation of the desired acoustic characteristic. After Laurie Fincham published his technique, it became a simple matter of deciding the network topology and the desired "target slope," and letting a computer do the cut-and-try guesswork for you.

Of course, back in the early 1970’s when this was pioneered, a "computer" meant a dedicated HP minicomputer coming in at $150,000 and a full-time Fortran programmer to punch the card decks and run the thing. (That’s what I saw at KEF when I visited them in 1974.) Today, this crossover optimizing technique is now available at far less cost by using a 486 or Pentium PC with ready-to-run programs such as XOPT, CALSOD, LEAP, and others. As a result of the dramatic cost reduction in both crossover optimization and powerful measurement systems, contemporary speaker designers are expected to be well-versed in the use of PC-based tools regardless of their design philosophy.

Objective-school designers have until recently ignored pulse response, diffraction control, and those fuzzy subjective areas such as capacitor, inductor, and wire quality. In contrast, research is focused on steadily improving driver quality, cabinet resonance control, and precise pair-matching in production.
http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/...r-design1.html
fill35U likes this.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 4390 Old 01-03-2019, 09:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,556
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3448 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
While I do agree some have been a little antagonistic, I do see how some could misinterpret the original post and think it was marketing slanted. I didn't, as I knew the points trying to be made. I believe it was Ellebob that said it could have been avoided by labeling the speakers as A,B,C. instead of with names. Does it bother me? No, but again I see how some could take offense to it.

I can understand some asking questions who haven't read Floyd's book. I mean it isn't like the OP said it was a prerequisite to participate in the thread. I could even overlook those that haven't read the links that Kevin and others have posted. What is irritating is when someone asks a question that has been answered in the thread.

As for why Revels aren't the number one selling speaker brand, I have no idea. Maybe their marketing department isn't that good or they have met their sales goals and don't care to proceed further. Whatever. I have seen them at Cedia for years. Honestly, Revel is kind of treated as the red headed step child to the JBLs. JBL gets the big room and all of the attention. I don't see a lot of people in the much smaller Revel room. Matter of fact, I had the room to myself for quite a while which doesn't happen in a lot of booths. It did afford me some quality time with several of the Harman guys in '17. On the flip side, the JBL demo usually has a long waiting line for each demo.

Regarding Cedia, I said at the time that I considered the Revel room in '17 one of my best of show. I based that on the quality of sound and price. They had a living room setup that IIRC was under $10k. I have been in a lot of rooms that cost a lot more that were horrible in comparison. I must admit though that this year I wasn't as impressed with the Revel demo. It was good, but it felt off for some reason. Despite that it was still better than a lot of demos I go into. I have never heard a good Goldenear demo.

Speaking of golden ears , I would like to see a double blind test with some of the so called golden ears around these parts to see what would happen. I think it would be humorous for some of us watching and gut wrenching for the participants. I know they have done some tests with golden ears in the past, but it would be fun for the AVS new wave.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is online now  
post #423 of 4390 Old 01-03-2019, 11:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drh3b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 3,622
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1958 Post(s)
Liked: 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post

As for why Revels aren't the number one selling speaker brand, I have no idea. Maybe their marketing department isn't that good or they have met their sales goals and don't care to proceed further. Whatever. I have seen them at Cedia for years. Honestly, Revel is kind of treated as the red headed step child to the JBLs. JBL gets the big room and all of the attention. I don't see a lot of people in the much smaller Revel room. Matter of fact, I had the room to myself for quite a while which doesn't happen in a lot of booths. It did afford me some quality time with several of the Harman guys in '17. On the flip side, the JBL demo usually has a long waiting line for each demo.
I can help you with this. Cost. You have to be upper middle class to afford Revels. I'm not. A quick perusal at Crutchfield leads me to the Revel Performa3 F208 being the cheapest Revels I would consider, as they are the cheapest that have dual 8 inch woofers*. They are 5 times my Klipsch RP-280f, and there are people in this world that think THOSE cost too much. A pair of those cost more than my 6 Klipsch towers and center.

*I listen loudly sometimes, and the RP280f were the only Klipsch speakers I tried that could play "dirty" midbass without distortion loudly, that is, Funk #49 by the James Gang. I would assume the Revels, while probably sounding better, would have problems playing at those levels. I wouldn't mind finding out....
Zen Traveler likes this.

My World Beating System!
Spoiler!

Last edited by drh3b; 01-03-2019 at 11:18 PM.
drh3b is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #424 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:20 AM
Senior Member
 
SunByrne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pearland, TX
Posts: 270
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 159 Post(s)
Liked: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
The point of diminishing returns starts at a lower price point than one may think
Depends on the speakers, of course. Designers who understand the science and strive to hit it as best they can at each price point reach the point of diminishing returns pretty early, while others never really reach it at all. I think the good makes start to reach it around the $300-500 range for bookshelf speakers.


So, I love the idea of this thread and how it started, but unfortunately and predictably, there's been a lot of derailment. It'd be great if we could kind of let all that be a bygone and get back to the central premise laid out at the beginning.

So, let's say for a moment that we live in a particular kind of fantasy world where [1] every speaker gets the spinorama treatment, and [2] the results are actually published and available to consumers. (And yes, this is a fantasy world. [1] won't happen because it's expensive, and even if it did, no way marketing people would actually allow [2].)

What would the consequences of this be?

Clearly, for the vast majority of people out there, this would change nothing. They'd still be buying $50 bluetooth speakers that are all bass and have monstrous distortion because of whatever it is that causes them to buy them now.

Even here on AVS, lots of people would be basically unaffected because, as can be seen by the responses in this thread, they don't care about the science. And, by the way, that's fine. We're talking about speakers here, not public health.

But for a select few (myself obviously included), this would be AWESOME. It would go a long way in ruling out what speakers we would and wouldn't try, and would give us some hope of really understanding exactly where diminishing returns start and just how much improvement we could reasonably expect for our extra dollars.

So, please, Kevin and Dr. Toole, as the very first post in this long thread promises, publish the spinorama measurements for as many speakers as you possibly can!


Now, on to the technical stuff. I have not read the book (maybe this coming summer I'll get to it), and I have a couple of questions that might be answered in the book:

* If we don't have full spinorama data, but the manufacturer publishes FR graphs that include on-axis FR and a few off-axis measurements of varying angles, how much do we really lose relative to the full spinorama?

* What about response in the time domain, that is, what you get in the spectral decay plots that some manufacturers publish? What does that add, if anything? It seems to me that good transient response ought to be important, too. Certainly not as important as accuracy, but to what extent does it figure in?

Thanks, and I appreciate the effort put in by Kevin and Dr. Toole.
modenacart, kma100, TimVG and 1 others like this.

_____
Study: Schiit Bifrost Multibit > Yamaha A-S500 > Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2/Emotiva S8
Living Room HT: Oppo BDP-83 > Denon X3400H > PSB Image 4T/8C/S50/Rythmik L22
Office: Schiit Modi 3 > NAD C740 > Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1 NrT
Bedroom: Onkyo TX-8050 > PSB Image 1B/SubSonic5
SunByrne is offline  
post #425 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 01:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
I had forgotten about that white paper - 20 years ago; count 'em. Not bad, not wrong, but certainly not up to date. Read the third edition of my book for current thinking :-) Thanks for the memory.
There's absolutely more (and more recent) information in the book! It seemed inapproprate however to start quoting portions of it, hence the 'old' reference :-)
What I take away from it, is that well-behaved loudspeakers, in all shapes and sizes, have the ability to perform very well, in regular rooms (mostly multifunctional living rooms) - and that the largest culprit is the corruption that takes place below the transition frequency. Luckily, the book also offers way to deal with that.
TimVG is online now  
post #426 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I owned a Infinity Interlude set - Towers & Center Channel for over 10 years. I understood they had great flat response, and try as much, I could not get to love them, nor did anyone in my family or social circle enthusiastic about listening to the music out of those.
Finally, I broke down and got myself a set of Definitive Technology speakers, the real ones, not the HT plastic ones. Not only did I start enjoying my music and HT, but family & friends started coming over to enjoy as well.
Just recently I purchased a pair of Elac F6.2 for my music room. Once I started playing, my friends and family sat down together to enjoy the music.
I know neither the Def Tech nor the Elacs are flat. They are all over the place in terms of response. However, they are loved by all. That is what I call as human preference.
shivaji likes this.
chikoo is offline  
post #427 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 913 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunByrne View Post
Depends on the speakers, of course. Designers who understand the science and strive to hit it as best they can at each price point reach the point of diminishing returns pretty early, while others never really reach it at all. I think the good makes start to reach it around the $300-500 range for bookshelf speakers.


So, I love the idea of this thread and how it started, but unfortunately and predictably, there's been a lot of derailment. It'd be great if we could kind of let all that be a bygone and get back to the central premise laid out at the beginning.

So, let's say for a moment that we live in a particular kind of fantasy world where [1] every speaker gets the spinorama treatment, and [2] the results are actually published and available to consumers. (And yes, this is a fantasy world. [1] won't happen because it's expensive, and even if it did, no way marketing people would actually allow [2].)

What would the consequences of this be?

Clearly, for the vast majority of people out there, this would change nothing. They'd still be buying $50 bluetooth speakers that are all bass and have monstrous distortion because of whatever it is that causes them to buy them now.

Even here on AVS, lots of people would be basically unaffected because, as can be seen by the responses in this thread, they don't care about the science. And, by the way, that's fine. We're talking about speakers here, not public health.

But for a select few (myself obviously included), this would be AWESOME. It would go a long way in ruling out what speakers we would and wouldn't try, and would give us some hope of really understanding exactly where diminishing returns start and just how much improvement we could reasonably expect for our extra dollars.

So, please, Kevin and Dr. Toole, as the very first post in this long thread promises, publish the spinorama measurements for as many speakers as you possibly can!


Now, on to the technical stuff. I have not read the book (maybe this coming summer I'll get to it), and I have a couple of questions that might be answered in the book:

* If we don't have full spinorama data, but the manufacturer publishes FR graphs that include on-axis FR and a few off-axis measurements of varying angles, how much do we really lose relative to the full spinorama?

* What about response in the time domain, that is, what you get in the spectral decay plots that some manufacturers publish? What does that add, if anything? It seems to me that good transient response ought to be important, too. Certainly not as important as accuracy, but to what extent does it figure in?

Thanks, and I appreciate the effort put in by Kevin and Dr. Toole.
Thanks.

May I suggest that Kevin and others also publish their equation that they used to convert Spinorama data to "speaker preference score". I am assuming that it would be a mathematical equation.

This calculated "speaker preference score" can then be compared with actual preference data obtained by double blind testing.

This will allow other independent labs to duplicate the results.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is online now  
post #428 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post
I owned a Infinity Interlude set - Towers & Center Channel for over 10 years. I understood they had great flat response, and try as much, I could not get to love them, nor did anyone in my family or social circle enthusiastic about listening to the music out of those.
Finally, I broke down and got myself a set of Definitive Technology speakers, the real ones, not the HT plastic ones. Not only did I start enjoying my music and HT, but family & friends started coming over to enjoy as well.
Just recently I purchased a pair of Elac F6.2 for my music room. Once I started playing, my friends and family sat down together to enjoy the music.
I know neither the Def Tech nor the Elacs are flat. They are all over the place in terms of response. However, they are loved by all. That is what I call as human preference.
Did you ever measure your setup to see what was going on? The times that I've heard 'good' loudspeakers sound 'bad' in a normal domestic room, a handful of simple measurements revealed issues below ~300-400Hz. Playing around with placement (or the relative seating location) remedied it each of those times.
TimVG is online now  
post #429 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,344
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 913 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Did you ever measure your setup to see what was going on? The times that I've heard 'good' loudspeakers sound 'bad' in a normal domestic room, a handful of simple measurements revealed issues below ~300-400Hz. Playing around with placement (or the relative seating location) remedied it each of those times.
It could be placement but that would not be fixed by a different speaker. Unless it is just a coincidence.

There are numerous examples where non flat speakers (from companies like B&W, Bose, Def tech and others are preferred by users. I don't know the answer to this puzzle and am hoping to learn from this thread.

Thanks to Kevin and others, we may just be able to do that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is online now  
post #430 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Did you ever measure your setup to see what was going on? The times that I've heard 'good' loudspeakers sound 'bad' in a normal domestic room, a handful of simple measurements revealed issues below ~300-400Hz. Playing around with placement (or the relative seating location) remedied it each of those times.
I want speakers that work with my room, not the other way around. I believe I am not the only one who wants that - A sound system that one enjoys hearing in a typical room in a typical house.
chikoo is offline  
post #431 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post
It could be placement but that would not be fixed by a different speaker. Unless it is just a coincidence.

There are numerous examples where non flat speakers (from companies like B&W, Bose, Def tech and others are preferred by users. I don't know the answer to this puzzle and am hoping to learn from this thread.

Thanks to Kevin and others, we may just be able to do that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Let me also tell you that both the DefTech and Elacs are world apart when it comes to their sound signature. They are totally different, and yet loved by the listeners.... the same set of listeners.
chikoo is offline  
post #432 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 06:59 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
In case anyone is wondering, here is the freq response for the Infinity Interlude speakers - the one that nobody in my family & friends loved.

This was courtesy of one of the AVS forum members. Much thanks for doing it.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/attac...mentid=2264472

Link to original post.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1154051-infinity-il-60-info.html#post35094449

and here is what that user had to say about it
Quote:
Here's the graph you requested. As can be seen it is incredibly flat (black line is on axis). The green, red, and blue lines are at various off axis angles. Floyd Toole and his gang at Harman got it right with this speaker. I've read that it tested better than their flagship Prelude so they had to dial back its performance to ensure that the Prelude would be worth the added cost. Been using my IL60s for 11 years now in conjunction with a stand alone sub, and I have no plans to get rid of them. They're the best speakers I've ever owned and sound better than almost anything I've heard during that time. But a somewhat reclusive life style needs to be factored in.

Last edited by chikoo; 01-04-2019 at 07:22 AM.
chikoo is offline  
post #433 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post

There are numerous examples where non flat speakers (from companies like B&W, Bose, Def tech and others are preferred by users. I don't know the answer to this puzzle and am hoping to learn from this thread.

Thanks to Kevin and others, we may just be able to do that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
To add to that: in blind tests it appears to simply not be the case, and the accurate loudspeakers are in fact preferred. What does that tell us?

Last edited by TimVG; 01-04-2019 at 07:19 AM.
TimVG is online now  
post #434 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post
I want speakers that work with my room, not the other way around. I believe I am not the only one who wants that - A sound system that one enjoys hearing in a typical room in a typical house.
Who doesn't? The problem being, in the low range - all bets are off. A single foot in any direction can be difference between tight and boomy bass, to give a random example.
New models of speakers designed to reduce boundary interference, with additional built in options to use PEQ and shelf filters are now hitting the market, to aid in that regard.
TimVG is online now  
post #435 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
To add to that: in blind tests it appears to simply not be the case, and the accurate loudspeakers are in fact preferred. What does that tell us?
It tells me that blind tests are indeed blind ie not able to see human preferences.
chikoo is offline  
post #436 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:29 AM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 264 Post(s)
Liked: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post
It tells me that blind tests are indeed blind ie not able to see human preferences.
I understand what you're saying, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Except, this is a thread for the people who do agree with science. So why do a handful of 'deniers' keep coming back here?
You're welcome to bring your own years of objective studying to the table. But repeating the same opinion over and over is not helping your point, not in this particular thread at least.
TimVG is online now  
post #437 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:39 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,190
Mentioned: 105 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3347 Post(s)
Liked: 4027
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post
It tells me that blind tests are indeed blind ie not able to see human preferences.
Molon_Labe is online now  
post #438 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:41 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
I understand what you're saying, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Except, this is a thread for the people who do agree with science. So why do a handful of 'deniers' keep coming back here?
You're welcome to bring your own years of objective studying to the table. But repeating the same opinion over and over is not helping your point, not in this particular thread at least.
I was just playing with words. Could-not-resist.
chikoo is offline  
post #439 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 07:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
modenacart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 282 Post(s)
Liked: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
I understand what you're saying, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Except, this is a thread for the people who do agree with science. So why do a handful of 'deniers' keep coming back here?

You're welcome to bring your own years of objective studying to the table. But repeating the same opinion over and over is not helping your point, not in this particular thread at least.


Don’t feed the troll!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sdurani likes this.
modenacart is offline  
post #440 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 08:35 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Ericglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Just below the US in South Florida
Posts: 11,556
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3448 Post(s)
Liked: 1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by drh3b View Post
I can help you with this. Cost. You have to be upper middle class to afford Revels. I'm not. A quick perusal at Crutchfield leads me to the Revel Performa3 F208 being the cheapest Revels I would consider, as they are the cheapest that have dual 8 inch woofers*. They are 5 times my Klipsch RP-280f, and there are people in this world that think THOSE cost too much. A pair of those cost more than my 6 Klipsch towers and center.

*I listen loudly sometimes, and the RP280f were the only Klipsch speakers I tried that could play "dirty" midbass without distortion loudly, that is, Funk #49 by the James Gang. I would assume the Revels, while probably sounding better, would have problems playing at those levels. I wouldn't mind finding out....

I guess I should have said in the price bracket, which I thought those that called Revel out were implying. Obviously Revel isn't going to be the top selling speaker, because of their price. My guess is for those on a more modest budget Kevin would recommend something from the JBL consumer line.

As for how loud a speaker gets, it isn't just about the size of the drivers or how many although that does play a part.

Having fun playing the new mobile game Volley Village
Ericglo is online now  
post #441 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 09:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drh3b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 3,622
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1958 Post(s)
Liked: 3723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
I guess I should have said in the price bracket, which I thought those that called Revel out were implying. Obviously Revel isn't going to be the top selling speaker, because of their price. My guess is for those on a more modest budget Kevin would recommend something from the JBL consumer line.

As for how loud a speaker gets, it isn't just about the size of the drivers or how many although that does play a part.
Well, my admittedly not very scientific thinking was that Klipsch, regardless what people think of them otherwise are able to play loudly. The Klipsch tower with 6 inch woofers couldn't cut it, so I assume most other towers with 6 inch woofers wouldn't be able to either.
drh3b is offline  
post #442 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 09:05 AM
Advanced Member
 
Jsin_N's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 756
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 442 Post(s)
Liked: 195
I think anyone arguing against showing what speakers are what can take a seat.

If they said A, B, and C speaker, someone would complain that they weren't sharing knowledge that would help someone to purchase the correct speaker. Admittedly me; I want to know.

Not only that, but, if you pay for the science and R&D (Acquiring Dr. Toole and doing the research to improve sound), then you should absolutely show off which speakers you're winning double blinds against and why.

This is done in every other market. In automotive they show their times at Nuremberg over the competitors. The 0-60's are published. The science and tech behind how and why they're better than the competitors. It's tech, and people buy because of it.

This horse is beyond dead.
Jsin_N is online now  
post #443 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 09:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by modenacart View Post
Don’t feed the troll!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really? Maybe I should stop feeding you.
modenacart and JerryLove like this.
chikoo is offline  
post #444 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 09:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
chikoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,213
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Who doesn't? The problem being, in the low range - all bets are off. A single foot in any direction can be difference between tight and boomy bass, to give a random example.
New models of speakers designed to reduce boundary interference, with additional built in options to use PEQ and shelf filters are now hitting the market, to aid in that regard.
If it was a matter of tight and boomy bass, I can understand. The Interlude just sounded boring. Same rooms, same placements, same amplifier(HK that too!), and the DefTech touched the hearts and souls of the audience.
My recent purchase of Elacs even with a totally different response was lively, and have had me, and my F&F sit down in the room to enjoy the music.
chikoo is offline  
post #445 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 10:16 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked: 2860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericglo View Post
Wow, this has been tedious trying to catch up. A couple of comments.

Floyd Toole did a lot of research before he ever went to Harman. It has been said multiple times. I am not sure how many speaker companies use the research from his pre - Harman days, but I am guessing there are more than a few. This isn't new information, as I first remember reading about it from Lynn Olson like twenty years ago. He described it in his Major Schools of Speaker Design.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/...r-design1.html
The article says: "D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC was the first to accurately measure and identify sources of driver and cabinet resonances in the late 1950’s".

For me this whole piece is a reminder of times past. Shorter was the principal peer reviewer of my 1985 & 1986 JAES papers. The journal editors had trouble finding someone who had the background. He was a nice, smart, man and we carried on a mail correspondence for a time afterwards. The BBC efforts in measuring the time domain performance were indeed pioneering, but much of it unnecessary. As we now know, transducers are minimum-phase devices over their operating frequency ranges. This simply means that the time domain information is in the amplitude response. Waterfalls add no new information. My papers showed that when the anechoic amplitude response is flat and smooth there are no resonances - which, not surprisingly, is why listeners prefer such loudspeakers in double-blind comparison tests. If there are residual resonances, we now know the audible thresholds so they can be attenuated by the necessary amounts, allowing more cost effective designs. We also know that, because they are minimum-phase phenomena they are treatable by minimum-phase equalization - a huge advantage of active loudspeakers.

I visited the BBC labs and Harwood toured me around. I was surprised to see and hear the typical broadcast control rooms that their monitor loudspeakers were designed to perform in. Many were small, acoustically very dead spaces. Direct sound would be dominant; off-axis performance cannot have mattered much. Figure 18.5(f) shows the BBC LS5/8 which was not bad on axis, but not great off axis. It did not perform well in normally reflective rooms. This trait found its way into some other British loudspeakers, such as the KEF 105.2 shown in Figure 5.4. It was interesting that about the time the BBC acoustical research activities were fading out, my own work was nicely underway.

Thanks for the memory . . .
avkv, Ericglo and Lonewolf7002 like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #446 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,243
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
The NS-10 was not originally designed to be used as it was by pros - the story is in the book. The designer visited me at the NRCC.
Not to mention Auratone.

As I recall, the NS-10 was somewhat arbitrarily selected by a few studios as their conception of what a mid-fi domestic system would resemble, and so could be used as a reference -- a better word might be "target" -- for mastering.

The Auratone (a single 4-1/2" radiator) modules were (are?) sometimes found sitting on the edges of mastering consoles as a reminder of what people might hear in their cars and from radios at home. JBL no doubt has been devoting considerable resources on car audio -- another topic for another thread.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #447 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:21 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 760
Mentioned: 80 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 790 Post(s)
Liked: 2860
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrimeTime View Post
Not to mention Auratone.

As I recall, the NS-10 was somewhat arbitrarily selected by a few studios as their conception of what a mid-fi domestic system would resemble, and so could be used as a reference -- a better word might be "target" -- for mastering.

The Auratone (a single 4-1/2" radiator) modules were (are?) sometimes found sitting on the edges of mastering consoles as a reminder of what people might hear in their cars and from radios at home. JBL no doubt has been devoting considerable resources on car audio -- another topic for another thread.
Measurements on the Auratone and the two versions of the NS-10 are in my book. The original NS-10 was designed to be a very HiFi consumer speaker, but Yamaha chose the wrong performance target - flat sound power - which yielded a massive midrange bump on axis in the 2-way design. Coincidentally, the spectrum closely resembled that of the Auratone, but with more bass. The subsequent "pro" version even more closely resembled the Auratone. Measurements are in my book.

To say that Auratones resemble car audio does car audio an injustice - most have at least some bass. The driver used in the Auratone, and facsimiles, of which there were many, was widely used in crummy TVs of the period. The Auratone "sound" persisted even in the large UREI monitor. Persuasive curves are in the book. Someone is now manufacturing replicas of Auratones and NS-10s. Will the misery never end? This is "pro" audio we are talking about . . . sounds pretty amateurish to me.
avkv and Ericglo like this.
Floyd Toole is online now  
post #448 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:32 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PrimeTime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lower California
Posts: 3,243
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 798 Post(s)
Liked: 491
Flat sound power is a useful design concept if the target is casual listening -- that is, listening done while doing chores in an adjacent room/space. If the NS-10 had been designed for flat on-axis response, it would sound rather muffled while doing the dishes.


The Auratone was more representative of car audio before they started placing woofers in the trunk.
PrimeTime is offline  
post #449 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:35 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,877
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3424 Post(s)
Liked: 1904
skepticism is what makes science...I still dont understand how the famous review/test of the jbl m2 and revel salon 2 resulted in the flattest measuring speaker losing. not implying anything as both are excellent 20k speakers. but science should of resulted in the m2 winning no?

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 #450 of 4390 Old 01-04-2019, 12:37 PM
Senior Member
 
smdelaney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Greater Boston, MA
Posts: 214
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunByrne View Post
...Even here on AVS, lots of people would be basically unaffected because, as can be seen by the responses in this thread, they don't care about the science. And, by the way, that's fine. We're talking about speakers here, not public health.

But for a select few (myself obviously included), this would be AWESOME. It would go a long way in ruling out what speakers we would and wouldn't try, and would give us some hope of really understanding exactly where diminishing returns start and just how much improvement we could reasonably expect for our extra dollars.

So, please, Kevin and Dr. Toole, as the very first post in this long thread promises, publish the spinorama measurements for as many speakers as you possibly can!
what @SunByrne said...!
There are so many choices and so little opportunity to explore them all...never mind side by side comparisons...that any objective means of filtering the most accurate speakers for a given price point would be welcome indeed.
Muza likes this.

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means."

-Steve-

TCL 55R617, Denon AVR-X2400H, Philips BDP-7502, Onkyo DX-C390, (2) HEOS 3HS2's,
Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble (FR/FL), MC150 (C), S100 (SR/SL), KLH E-12DB (SW)
smdelaney 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