How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 24 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6376Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #691 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 03:02 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber View Post
Like, I said in the second part of my post, that was left out of the quote, the overaching principles are basically common sense. Why would you make a speaker that doesn’t preserve the fidelity of the original signal as much as possible?

My familiarity with the AES is super small. I enjoy utilizing the fruits of research concerning audio, but I don’t have time to get mired in the granularities or politics (enough of that in my field already...). I’ve read the Master Handbook of Acoustics and memorized all the basic ideas I will likely ever need in my lifetime to set up audio rooms for myself anytime I move or buy new speakers. I actually have Dr. Toole’s book (1st edition) that I bought at the same time a number of years ago. I just haven’t had the time to read it. At this rate, it will be in the 7th edition before I have time. Not sure why I picked one book to read over the other all those years ago. Flip of a coin...
"Why would you make a speaker that doesn’t preserve the fidelity of the original signal as much as possible?"
Absolutely true! Why do so many people not believe it?

I can guarantee that my book will never reach the 7th edition! This is likely to be the last, with addenda appearing on the companion website: www.routledge.com/cw/toole. It is open access, no book purchase required. But I would suggest spending the money on the new edition - it is a much more rewarding read. BTW, nobody gets rich selling technical books. For me, it buys some decent wines now and again - thanks in advance
avkv, Muza, Gooddoc and 7 others like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #692 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 04:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MUDCAT45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,063
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 593 Post(s)
Liked: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewTT View Post
According to Harman, their science tells you to choose Harman. Clever marketing angle I must say.
Maybe not as clever as those snake oil cable manufacturers that you buy from.
bearr48 likes this.
MUDCAT45 is offline  
post #693 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 04:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,234
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3589 Post(s)
Liked: 2023
being skeptical of science is nothing new. most valid testing shows the negatives as well as the positives.
avkv likes 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
torii is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #694 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 05:01 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,278
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1347 Post(s)
Liked: 1277
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
being skeptical of science is nothing new. most valid testing shows the negatives as well as the positives.
Skepticism is essential to science.
avkv, John Schuermann and sdrucker like this.

Kal Rubinson

"Music in the Round"
Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
http://www.stereophile.com/category/music-round

Kal Rubinson is online now  
post #695 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 05:09 PM
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 Kal Rubinson View Post



Skepticism is essential to science.


Absolutely. Reposting the same stupid comments that have been addressed over and over is trolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bearr48 and drh3b like this.
modenacart is offline  
post #696 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 05:26 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,234
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3589 Post(s)
Liked: 2023
I havent heard any of the negatives in the science of choosing a loudspeaker from the people that conducted the science. I do have Doc Floyds latest book and I also dont expect any negatives from paid employees. but in order for tests to be repeatable by others, since all this data is shared, both the positives and the negatives should be pointed out. for example, trained listeners were preferred to shorten the testing time...speakers tested in mono...does room size play a part? I dont know...but its good to talk about stuff like this on a forum. It probably gets very old for some, but its necessary if you want an active forum. we all know revel/jbl make great speakers...dont think thats the point. the point is about science, is harmons way perfect? or does the science have some weaknesses that can be improved upon?

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 #697 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 06:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,313
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 691
Quote:
Originally Posted by RN2013 View Post
In other words, the blind test answered the question, between a sip of Pepsi and a sip of Coke, which do you prefer…it did not answer the question…which would you rather have in your home to live with over the long term (and why).
This is a good point but in my opinion the Harman double blind tests are more likely to answer the question of what speaker is better long term, not in the short term. My personal anecdote is with a pair of Polks I use to have that were on the bright side and actually sounded good at first because of it, very detailed and edgy but after awhile they were just too bright and fatiguing. These speakers definitely don't measure neutral, the highs are tipped up relative to the midrange. My point is, a speaker like this may sound good initially but since these types don't win the double blinds, it shows that the listening session must be long enough to show that a bright speaker tends to be bothersome after awhile.
avkv, Muza and bearr48 like this.
aarons915 is online now  
post #698 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 06:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
filecat13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cal Central Coast
Posts: 4,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 91 Post(s)
Liked: 185
Maybe it will help if posters stop using words they don't understand in context. If one wishes to criticize "Harman's science" then one must understand the difference between science and research, for example. Science and research are not the same thing.

Correctly, our friends in Canada intelligently call their organization the National Research Center (Canada), not Science Canada or some such thing. The NRCC's research led to multiple breakthroughs that advanced the science of sound reproduction, but it did not create audio science. The method used to explore, rethink, restate, or, in rare cases, create scientific knowledge is called the scientific method, and research is but one element of that process. Organizations like AES try to standardize and improve the rigor of the research process to increase the breadth of scientific inquiry.

I have several younger generation coworkers whose idea of research is going online and asking people on FaceBook or Twitter to weigh in on a current topic. That is, in fact, a form of research, but it is one that could not withstand the rigors of any legitimate scientific inquiry. It is bad research and it results in bad, unreliable conclusions.

It's inaccurate to say that Harman's science is a marketing manipulator. Harman isn't doing science; it's doing research, and when that research is completed, the results are published, put up for peer review, accepted or rejected by the leading scientific organization in the field, then made available for the use of other scientists. If Harman research produced a significant advancement that it kept secret and refused to share with its professional peers, then it wouldn't really be science, would it? It would be proprietary research that had not been presented, published, peer reviewed, and accepted by AES. It would not, in the truest sense, advance the science of audio reproduction. It would be a trade secret, not unlike the "research" behind cryo-frozen cables, magical Maple resonators, or sonically-purifying pyramids. In that case, the research is being used as a marketing manipulator.

In Harman's case, aside from continuous spending on improving methods and research, its innovations are in process and engineering. It uses what it learns to improve its products.

A lot has happened at Harman that I heartily disapprove of, and I've sworn off its products on more than one occasion, but in reality I always seem to end up with more of its stuff because from the first listen to the last, I enjoy their products more than any others. However, being involved in a research center at a major university has helped me to at least appreciate the research they do and the results they get, if not all the personalities and politics that a large corporation breeds.

What I can afford, when I can afford it...

Last edited by filecat13; 01-14-2019 at 06:53 PM.
filecat13 is offline  
post #699 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 07:06 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
QueueCumber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Farmer McGregor's Garden
Posts: 6,317
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by filecat13 View Post
I have several younger generation coworkers whose idea of research is going online and asking people on FaceBook or Twitter to weigh in on a current topic. That is, in fact, a form of research, but it is one that could not withstand the rigors of any legitimate scientific inquiry. It is bad research and it results in bad, unreliable conclusions.
Qualitative data can have very useful probative value for future quantitative hypotheses. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “bad research” as long as its shortcomings are openly acknowledged.
QueueCumber is offline  
post #700 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 07:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unretarded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Ventura Ca
Posts: 4,078
Mentioned: 70 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1688 Post(s)
Liked: 2080
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
I also enjoyed The Audio Critic, and have actually been going through back issues again over this last year.


That said, I'm glad there were alternatives to The Audio Critic and to his viewpoints as well. (If the Aczel's ran the audio world, the offerings would be severely restricted from what we have now, and there would be no tube amps ever made after the first decent SS amps were designed. And he would utterly poo-poo the comeback of vinyl. And...I really enjoy tube amps, and vinyl has revitalized my music listening!)






What audiophiles are talking about, of course, is a component changing the *perception* of tempo. When it comes to speakers, depending on the design, how it's interacting with a room etc, I've certainly experienced this. If you lean out the bottom end, for instance, the instruments in the bass region can sound "faster" less turgid. I demoed a speaker in my own home with a whole bunch of tracks I've played forever on my systems and I was utterly taken aback by the weird way this speaker seemed to slow apparent pace of the music, mostly due it seems to how it handled the bass frequencies. If I flipped back and forth between my existing speakers and the new one, it was bizarre because it really did give the perception that the bass player was playing in a slower, lazier way, where the other speaker sounded taught and fast and propulsive, making the energy feel "faster."


It's true that audiophiles have believed a lot of untrue things. But I do reject the idea that the descriptive terms and concepts they have come up have no relevance. We hear sound. It sounds different. We like to talk about it and communicate about it, so we come up with words and concepts to do so.


If an audiophile says a speaker sounds "dark" or instead that it has an "airy high end" I *know* what he is getting at. At least, how it sounds to him/her.

I think what I say a lot sums this up....


The best speakers in the world listened to in a racquet ball court will sound bad....any decent speaker in a great room will sound better than that....…..


When we place a speaker in a room and describe what happens we are no longer talking about the speaker, we are talking about the room.....to get super technical, how the speaker interacts with the room,...….in most cases a poor unsuitable room.


Fix the room or crutch the speaker where it interacts well with the room...……….I will fix the room.


Take the best speaker you can get, that would be one with great measurements, not constructed of unicorn blood, then put it in the best room you can...…..do a few measurements to detect any gross interactions, correct those as best as possible, then season to taste.



Choosing the best speaker and choosing the best speaker for my room are 2 very different things when talking about measurements...….



Who knows what will sound best in a given room and speakers should not be designed for any single room...…….they should be designed just like they are being discussed in this thread as they might find themselves in any type of room from dead to a racquet ball court.


This will allow us to narrow down the field without listening to every speaker in the world and then when you find a good speaker for your room, you can then locate others that might sound as good by aligning the ones with the same measurement.



The unification of measurements to a repeatable scale is to allow comparison.


The measurements do not obligate you to do anything in design....you can make them shrill, a huge bump in the mids or have a crazy tilt in the low end......whatever a manufacturer wants to set them apart from the crowd...crazy exotic materials and poetic words in the brochure.



Why some one would discard tests that show what people like/buy and the measurements inside I do not know...…...Bose used this to sell billions, you might not like them, but they sell a lot of product and people swear by how good it sounds.



I just see a lot of people thinking measurements are some how a borg trap to make all speakers part of the collective...…..or some how obligate us to conclude no one can like anything different sounding......or that the room plays no part. It plays a large roll...…



I see people all the time throw speakers at a room until something sticks...…….shrill speakers seem to work well in super dead rooms for some, and neutral/muffled speakers seem to work well in racquet ball court rooms...….then they subjectively come to conclusion X is better in a speaker. They then move, realize X speaker now sounds poor in the new room, then throw more speakers at the room until what they want to hear happens....then subjectively conclude X speaker is better than the last speakers.



In the end, with full disclosure and a unification of scale, you almost choose without listening , which speakers will sound good in the racquet ball court or in your room and be able to discard the choices that will not have a high chance of success.



This is not directed towards your comment as much as it is to the subject...…..your comment was just a catalyst for my comments.
steven59 likes this.

Link to Stereo Integrity SI HT 18 sub build......https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-di...-pedestal.html
Speakers and subs for sale...https://www.avsforum.com/forum/209-au...kers-subs.html
unretarded is offline  
post #701 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 08:01 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,340
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3782 Post(s)
Liked: 2996
What's annoying to those trying to follow the whole discussion is the folks who parachute in without taking the time to read the whole thread and end up repeating things that have already been addressed multiple times. Eliminate the annoying and unnecessary repetition in this thread and it gets a lot more concise and easier for everyone to read in its entirety.
Lonewolf7002 and SouthernCA like this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #702 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 08:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audioguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Not far from Atlanta - but far enough!
Posts: 9,567
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4982 Post(s)
Liked: 3822
As someone has already stated, better management by the mods can address this but, of course, they have 100’s of threads to manage.
audioguy is offline  
post #703 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 09:01 PM
 
emcdade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,051
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 845 Post(s)
Liked: 441
If I were just picking a speaker out based on Harman's average listener preferences and some frequency response data, I probably wouldn't have picked my current speakers (Sopra 2's) based on their anechoic response as measured at the NRCC:



The bass response seems a little strange, and there is not the HF rolloff prescribed by the Harman curve which would lead you to think these speakers could be "bright".

What these graphs WOULDN'T tell me is how supremely smooth the Focal BE tweeter is. There is no sense of brightness whatsoever, just air and sparkle for miles. It had the best high frequency performance I demo'd out of many speakers in the $10-20k range, including the Revels. It also turns out that when measured in-room the Sopra 2's also play down to 30 HZ at 0db down with room to breathe around my room boundaries without a ton of bass bloat.

What I'm getting at is that IMO these graphs and spinorama data tell part of the story and are a good starting point, but they are far from the final verdict. And I also understand manufacturer's reluctance to publish them if they feel they don't represent their loudspeaker as well as actually listening to them.
emcdade is offline  
post #704 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 09:36 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
head_unit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunny L.A.
Posts: 1,340
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 574 Post(s)
Liked: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
If not prior to the following quote from Dr. Bose in 2007 "1) We don’t know of any measurements that actually determine anything about a product, and 2) Measurements are phony, in general, as they are printed."
It would be interesting to know if that is what Dr. Bose really said verbatim, and what he actually meant. In the way-early-days timeframe he's talking about, I'd agree that speaker design was very primitive, specs lies even more than today (and, as now, not measured in a comparable way even if it would seem so on paper), and so on. And I'd say that we STILL don't know a lot about what measurements really matter. However, for each type of device (speaker, amp, etc) we can define some basics of performance like frequency response and by now we CAN say what is better. I'm quite certain that internally Bose measures the heck out of stuff. And accepts if some measurements don't seem to be "best" if the product will hit a niche and sell. For instance, the little Bose cube systems with subwoofer, once measured to have a big response hole between the upper range of the "sub" module and the lower range of the satellites. But in a fellow MBA classmates condo, watching a movie, it sounded great. Your ears/brain can get used to an awful lot and decode through the flaws.
head_unit is offline  
post #705 of 5313 Old 01-14-2019, 11:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
TimVG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 306 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcdade View Post
If I were just picking a speaker out based on Harman's average listener preferences and some frequency response data, I probably wouldn't have picked my current speakers (Sopra 2's) based on their anechoic response as measured at the NRCC:



The bass response seems a little strange, and there is not the HF rolloff prescribed by the Harman curve which would lead you to think these speakers could be "bright".

What these graphs WOULDN'T tell me is how supremely smooth the Focal BE tweeter is. There is no sense of brightness whatsoever, just air and sparkle for miles. It had the best high frequency performance I demo'd out of many speakers in the $10-20k range, including the Revels. It also turns out that when measured in-room the Sopra 2's also play down to 30 HZ at 0db down with room to breathe around my room boundaries without a ton of bass bloat.

What I'm getting at is that IMO these graphs and spinorama data tell part of the story and are a good starting point, but they are far from the final verdict. And I also understand manufacturer's reluctance to publish them if they feel they don't represent their loudspeaker as well as actually listening to them.
Bass response: the anechoic chamber will not be accurate entirely below 80 (or so)Hz - Dr. Toole, having experience with said chamber, could perhaps elaborate.
HF rolloff: This is what happens when you put a loudspeaker inside of a room and is the result of absortion (through air, furniture, ..) and the fact that loudspeakers become more directional as the frequency rises, thus the room can add nothing to it as you would find in the opposite low range.
Graphs: That graph doesn't tell you that, yes.

The listening window tells you a bit more already. Slight recession in the ever 'tiring' 2-3kHz range.



And the far off-axis data will tell us even more.



So what you hear is a decent flat, direct, on axis sound (accurate/neutral) - followed by something resembling the above curves. A recessed upper midrange (which will add smoothness) followed by an excess of energy in the 4-5kHz range (adding detail). So the early reflected sounds are not neutral. That's basically what the graphs indicate.
unretarded likes this.
TimVG is offline  
post #706 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 04:14 AM
Member
 
OldMovieNut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 191
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Bass response: the anechoic chamber will not be accurate entirely below 80 (or so)Hz - Dr. Toole, having experience with said chamber, could perhaps elaborate.
HF rolloff: This is what happens when you put a loudspeaker inside of a room and is the result of absortion (through air, furniture, ..) and the fact that loudspeakers become more directional as the frequency rises, thus the room can add nothing to it as you would find in the opposite low range.
Graphs: That graph doesn't tell you that, yes.

The listening window tells you a bit more already. Slight recession in the ever 'tiring' 2-3kHz range.



And the far off-axis data will tell us even more.



So what you hear is a decent flat, direct, on axis sound (accurate/neutral) - followed by something resembling the above curves. A recessed upper midrange (which will add smoothness) followed by an excess of energy in the 4-5kHz range (adding detail). So the early reflected sounds are not neutral. That's basically what the graphs indicate.
This is not surprising given the it has a 6.5" mid.

Here are a couple of questions for Dr. Toole:
  1. Has there been research where double blind testing has been done on a single speaker where the only variable is a change in crossover frequency from mid to tweeter for example? Is there an inflection point for the listener preference? This kind of test should be fairly easy to pull of with active crossovers. What I am getting is the trade between midrange power handling and off-axis behavior.
  2. There are people who prefer the sound of full range drivers. What is it about such drivers that drives that preference?
Cheers,
OldMovieNut
OldMovieNut is offline  
post #707 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 05:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,595
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1042 Post(s)
Liked: 1237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave in Green View Post
What's annoying to those trying to follow the whole discussion is the folks who parachute in without taking the time to read the whole thread and end up repeating things that have already been addressed multiple times. Eliminate the annoying and unnecessary repetition in this thread and it gets a lot more concise and easier for everyone to read in its entirety.
If you are unhappy with a post or multiple posts from the same person, report the posts to the moderator. You have to state your reasoning for reporting them. A moderator will look at the post and your reason for reporting it. Action may be taken by the moderator.

We have had several folks complaining about the "signal to noise ratio" in this thread. You have to take the appropriate action to help solve the problem.
Rex Anderson is offline  
post #708 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 05:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
QueueCumber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Farmer McGregor's Garden
Posts: 6,317
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked: 86
Trying to read new posts in this thread when you first wake up defintely scrambles your brain worse than any drug...
QueueCumber is offline  
post #709 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 05:51 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 Dave in Green View Post
What's annoying to those trying to follow the whole discussion is the folks who parachute in without taking the time to read the whole thread and end up repeating things that have already been addressed multiple times. Eliminate the annoying and unnecessary repetition in this thread and it gets a lot more concise and easier for everyone to read in its entirety.
This is an open class room and the reason why the social media and open discussion forums are so popular. Maybe you need to have the forum designed such that one cannot ask questions till the guest has perused through all the posts in a thread. I’d love to see how popular that gets.

Ps: It is presumptous of you to arrive at the conclusion that people have not read all the posts. They may have, and were probably not satisfied with the answer or maybe they are just not as smart as you are.
unretarded likes this.

Last edited by chikoo; 01-15-2019 at 05:57 AM.
chikoo is offline  
post #710 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 06:04 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 chikoo View Post
This is an open class room and the reason why the social media and open discussion forums are so popular. Maybe you need to have the forum designed such that one cannot ask questions till the guest has perused through all the posts in a thread. I’d love to see how popular that gets.



Ps: It is presumptous of you to arrive at the conclusion that people have not read all the posts. They may have, and were probably not satisfied with the answer or maybe they are just not as smart as you are.


It is not presumptuous at all. It is quit clear that some people are either not reading the post and source material or just ignoring them and ask the same questions over and over or make the same trolling comments over and over. People need to take some ownership of their learning and read the posts, read source material, and watch the lecture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
modenacart is offline  
post #711 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 06:05 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 Rex Anderson View Post
If you are unhappy with a post or multiple posts from the same person, report the posts to the moderator. You have to state your reasoning for reporting them. A moderator will look at the post and your reason for reporting it. Action may be taken by the moderator.

We have had several folks complaining about the "signal to noise ratio" in this thread. You have to take the appropriate action to help solve the problem.


This is a good recommendation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
modenacart is offline  
post #712 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 06:20 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,234
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3589 Post(s)
Liked: 2023
who is this guy? never really read anything that disagreed with Doc Floyd...http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm


this hobby so confusing...but its fun, and just goes to show always seems to be 2 sides to everything.

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 #713 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 07:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
12B4A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: CR Iowa
Posts: 1,092
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 627 Post(s)
Liked: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
who is this guy? never really read anything that disagreed with Doc Floyd...http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

this hobby so confusing...but its fun, and just goes to show always seems to be 2 sides to everything.
It's been discussed here.

Also, don't conflate 2 sides as being 2 equally compelling viewpoints.
torii likes this.

Life is Lambertian
12B4A is online now  
post #714 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 08:32 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
It is not presumptuous at all. It is quit clear that some people are either not reading the post and source material or just ignoring them and ask the same questions over and over or make the same trolling comments over and over. People need to take some ownership of their learning and read the posts, read source material, and watch the lecture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
as much as it is the responsibility of the person asking the question, it behooves the holder of the knowledge to point the curious one in the right direction. Now if one feels it is a monotonous task and beneath their qualifications, they can choose to ignore or they can refrain from participating in an open forum. The choice is totally theirs.
MUDCAT45 likes this.
chikoo is offline  
post #715 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 08:58 AM
Member
 
butch666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
who is this guy? never really read anything that disagreed with Doc Floyd...http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm


this hobby so confusing...but its fun, and just goes to show always seems to be 2 sides to everything.
Isn't blocking the first reflections just a low-tech way of filtering a speaker with poor off axis response? If the speaker was well behaved off axis there would be no need to "handle" these reflections in the first place?


Or am I misunderstanding something?
DS-21 and Steelhead57 like this.
butch666 is offline  
post #716 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 09:05 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
torii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 7,234
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3589 Post(s)
Liked: 2023
I dont know. I try to read alot and also listen and this hobby has thoughts all over the place. and then try to get reviews/feedback on speakers you own or have heard and get 20 different descriptions of sound. everyone has own set of ears and room and gear and setup...Im open minded and always wonder/question everything because I cant make up my mind.

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 #717 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 09:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,340
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3782 Post(s)
Liked: 2996
I don't think the moderators want to be bothered by having every repetitious post reported as repetition is not against forum rules, so I would not recommend that unless a post obviously fits the description included under the Report Post option:

Quote:
Note: This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

Some repetitious posts are completely innocent while others represent a forum etiquette issue. It's simply the nature of open forums that some posters are going to be more disruptive and inconsiderate of others, and not everyone is going to agree on who's guilty of what. Ignoring rather than engaging those who we think seem more interested in disrupting the discussion than seriously participating is probably the best of many imperfect solutions.
CruelInventions likes this.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #718 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 09:57 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 836
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 875 Post(s)
Liked: 3076
Quote:
Originally Posted by butch666 View Post
Isn't blocking the first reflections just a low-tech way of filtering a speaker with poor off axis response? If the speaker was well behaved off axis there would be no need to "handle" these reflections in the first place?


Or am I misunderstanding something?
The topic of first reflections is discussed at length in Chapter 7 in my book. The practice of absorbing first lateral reflections developed in recording control rooms. As I show evidence of, in the early days especially, pro monitors had dreadful off-axis performance (examples shown in Chapter 18 and elsewhere). The only way to improve the sound quality was to absorb the off-axis sound, which led to the fashion of putting the loudspeakers in a "dead" end of the room and providing some reflections via diffusers in a "live" end. As discussed in section 7.5 there are reasons why professionals may have a different perspective on listening than recreational listeners - hearing loss being one.

Improved loudspeakers have changed the rules.

Common materials used for absorbing first reflections, typically 1 or 2-inch fiberglass, do not eliminate reflections, they just turn the treble down (Figures 7.6 and 7.10), which is a coloration in addition to imperfect off-axis radiation. Few people are aware of this fact and purveyors of acoustical materials do not advertise it - traditional absorption coefficients are measured in diffuse sound fields - reverberation chambers, not listening rooms. Effective materials are not fashionably thin, and decorative "acoustical" fabric covers often reflect high frequencies (Figure 7.10). All is not as advertised.

My research focussed on understanding the interactions of loudspeakers and rooms. It has turned out that, with well designed loudspeakers the room matters much less than many have believed. With flawed loudspeakers room treatments cannot salvage truly good sound. I have read that one may need 40 or more sound absorbing panels and bass traps in a room - not my room! There are better ways.
Muza, SunByrne and unretarded like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #719 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 10:42 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 27,987
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7252 Post(s)
Liked: 6286
Quote:
Originally Posted by butch666 View Post
Isn't blocking the first reflections just a low-tech way of filtering a speaker with poor off axis response? If the speaker was well behaved off axis there would be no need to "handle" these reflections in the first place?

Or am I misunderstanding something?
Comes down to personal preference. Klippel did some blind testing comparing a speaker with narrow dispersion (minimal side wall reflections) versus a speaker with wider dispersion but crappy off-axis response. The latter ended up being preferred. Most listeners were apparently craving spaciousness enough that a bad version was preferable to none. Even with speakers that are well behaved off axis, some listeners will like the image broadening that comes with lateral early reflections while others will prefer the tighter imaging that comes with a dryer room (e.g., the OP's listening room has absorptive side walls even though his Revel speakers have excellent off-axis response).
krabapple and CruelInventions like this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #720 of 5313 Old 01-15-2019, 11:12 AM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 663
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by torii View Post
who is this guy? never really read anything that disagreed with Doc Floyd...http://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm


this hobby so confusing...but its fun, and just goes to show always seems to be 2 sides to everything.
Good read! Is Ethan correct in his statements?

Sony XBR65x900e / STR-DN1080 / original PS4 / WOW! Ultra TV / Quantum Access Mini PC Stick w/Windows 10 / 8 x Rockville SPG88 8“ DJ PA Speakers / Dayton Audio SA1000 / Kicker 08S15L74 in a Tapped-Tapered Quarter Wave Tube (negative flare tapped horn).
BP1Fanatic 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