How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 37 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6394Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1081 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 12:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
You can compare to the Revel M16 review by Audioholics here:

https://www.audioholics.com/bookshel...6/measurements

The gate frequency is different for each speaker which will impact the response curve. There's also no mention if any smoothing was applied. No groundplane measurement on the M16 either. He failed to mention in the BMR review that his groundplane measurement of -3dB at around 54hz was nowhere near the quoted -2dB @34hz.

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1082 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 12:19 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
The gate frequency is different for each speaker which will impact the response curve. There's also no mention if any smoothing was applied. No groundplane measurement on the M16 either. He failed to mention in the BMR review that his groundplane measurement of -3dB at around 54hz was nowhere near the quoted -2dB @34hz.
Here is a 4pi anechoic spinorama on the M16. The little bass hump is a gift to those without subs
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Revel Concerta2 M16 Spin.jpg
Views:	128
Size:	98.2 KB
ID:	2517524  
avkv, Rick Craig and dwaleke like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1083 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 12:43 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,799
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1339 Post(s)
Liked: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
You might want to find another example considering this one doesn't support your position. It was the "unbiased" third party investigators that produced biased results that incorrectly withdrew a very helpful drug from the market. Aprotitin has been re-approved in Canada and the EU, but unfortunately not the US. Hard for any drug to recover from that type of assault considering there are alternatives. Like Paul Harvey says, "Now you know the rest of the story". https://academic.oup.com/bja/article/110/5/675/330401
Aprotinin was reapproved for use in Canada and the EU "For Compassionate Use Only." Bayer only stocks enough of the drug to meet Compassionate Use requirements. Only high-risk patients are even considered candidates for Compassionate Use, and high-risk patients rarely have the time to wait for the arduous approval process for Compassionate Use, so very few patients are actually receiving the drug anymore.



Nonetheless, when I first posted this example, I said: "Still, in the final analysis, I know in my heart that we did the right thing by giving patients Aprotinin, even though a retrospective analysis of our own results matched the larger meta-analysis of the large observational studies. In fact, if we still had the drug today, we would still probably be using it, albeit on a more selective basis, and then taking some other measures to protect our patients from the increased morbidity of the drug, not to mention doing everything we can to eliminate the increased mortality. The drug really did work to control bleeding in high risk patients. I have no doubt that many lives were saved by this drug, even though some patients experienced detrimental side effects."


When this whole thing blew up, I reviewed the results from our own practice, recorded in our own database, and bench-marked nationally through the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' National Database. I can't provide exact stats because I don't own the data, but I can tell you that our operative mortality was inappropriately higher in our Aprotinin group, and our incidence of Acute Kidney Injury was significantly higher in our Aprotinin group. Our perioperative bleeding went down significantly, and post-op chest tube drainage went down as well. So it definitely worked to reduce bleeding and transfusions. However, we were basically trading one set of risks for another with Aprotinin. Nonetheless, our results reinforced to me the conclusions of the meta-analyses.



None of that was the point of my using that example. I was about a whole bunch of very smart people who believed company-sponsored research that was based on small, low-powered studies. When larger meta-analyses of the studies were done, a different set of conclusions were reached.



Craig
overg likes this.

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

My System

Last edited by craig john; 01-28-2019 at 01:17 PM.
craig john is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1084 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 01:15 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,799
Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1339 Post(s)
Liked: 1578
I have been accused of being uninformed and/or misinformed about the Room Correction Study because I hadn't read the paper in its' entirety." Well, I had read the blog about the subject, which is here:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/1...uation-of.html


I also reviewed the PowerPoint Slide Deck Dr. Olive used to present the study at the AES convention, which is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97...GQ4/view?hl=en
This is a 30 slide presentation that basically tells the whole tale of the study. Based on those 2 documents, I felt I had a good handle on the study, and I still feel that way.


Nonetheless, I went down to the hospital medical library today and inquired whether they might have access to the JAES. The librarian stated that they don't have access to non-medical journals, but they can sometimes "borrow" papers from other academic libraries. I have submitted the information on the article and they are checking whether they can access it through a shared resource with other academic institutions. I should know by tomorrow.



We'll see if there is some "revel-ation" (PI) in the full article that wasn't available in the blog post or the slide deck.



Craig

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

My System
craig john is offline  
post #1085 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 01:41 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
The gate frequency is different for each speaker which will impact the response curve. There's also no mention if any smoothing was applied. No groundplane measurement on the M16 either. He failed to mention in the BMR review that his groundplane measurement of -3dB at around 54hz was nowhere near the quoted -2dB @34hz.
Actually, to quote the specs accurately would be to say 34Hz - 20Khz +/- 2dB

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is online now  
post #1086 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 02:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 983
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 606 Post(s)
Liked: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Unfortunately the Audioholics measurements were early in their game and were corrupted at mid and high frequencies by poor microphone mounting - causing the ugly ripples. I think (hope) they fixed that.

EDIT: Figure 12.1(e) in my book shows a proper spinorama.
So not quite apples to apples then, thanks. The overall curve is very nice and can be seen in the actual spin as well. Very good measurements. Likewise, here are some other 3rd party measurements of the M106 that closely follow the Harman spins:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

Part One: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...view-part-one/
Part Two (You are actually mentioned as providing feedback towards the end of this article!): https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...view-part-two/
Part Three: https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/...ew-part-three/

And then of course Soundstage:

https://www.soundstage.com/index.php...nts&Itemid=153

Again, very good measurements across the board and all show "a general trend" of accuracy to my eyes. These kinda "prove" to me to validity of the Harman spins, if nothing else.

Also, the DI of the BMRs above, in particular, looks quite excellent and is likely due to being a true 3-way.

Let's see some more spins!!!...
Vergiliusm and Soulburner like this.

Speakers: M040 | X18 | UB5
Sub: VTF-2 mk5
Amps: HK 3490 | TSR-7810

Last edited by l0nestar8; 01-28-2019 at 02:38 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #1087 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 05:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,774
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3774 Post(s)
Liked: 3380
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

None of that was the point of my using that example. I was about a whole bunch of very smart people who believed company-sponsored research that was based on small, low-powered studies. When larger meta-analyses of the studies were done, a different set of conclusions were reached.



Craig
That is incorrect on multiple points. The link I posted explains in detail what happened, so I won't repeat it here. The root problem wasn't faulty "company sponsored" research. The problem was the meta-analysis.

It is very difficult to have a discussion if basic facts are misunderstood.
Lonewolf7002 likes this.

Last edited by Gooddoc; 01-28-2019 at 05:16 PM.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1088 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 06:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 480
The room correction discussion is interesting, but tangential to the main point of the thread. I think it's a big stretch to look at that admittedly preliminary investigation into RC, and then try to suggest there's potentially a problem with the speaker measurement protocol that began many years before Harman incorporated it, by Dr. Toole and colleagues.

Besides it now being an industry standard, it is used by many, many speaker companies in the development process. We just don't often get to see the results. If nothing else, it has put some pressure on some companies to include in their specs more than just the on-axis response. It's not as comprehensive as Harman's measurements, but at least its usually +/- 30 degrees horizontal and +/- 10 degrees vertical.

It's a start.
Q&A, krabapple, DavidK442 and 2 others like this.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #1089 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 06:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Actually, to quote the specs accurately would be to say 34Hz - 20Khz +/- 2dB
You're right. If you average the graph taken on the groundplane then +/-2dB 58Hz - 20K.

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #1090 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 06:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
You're right. If you average the graph taken on the groundplane then +/-2dB 58Hz - 20K.
I see what you're saying.

Here's the same speaker, Canadian National Research Council anechoic measurements. Starting from 45 degrees to 75 degrees off-axis.

Click image for larger version

Name:	CNRC-BMR.gif
Views:	94
Size:	29.4 KB
ID:	2517658

Very different from the Audioholics measurements, and appears to supports the rated spec, or very close to it.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is online now  
post #1091 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 07:33 PM
Member
 
spkr_diy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunByrne View Post

When I saw the spinorama my impression was that it looked very strong—maybe a bit bright—but I'm new to reading those, so I wanted some input from someone with more expertise. So, thank you, Dr. Toole.
I've heard the BMRs at Dennis' house, and I can attest that their spectral balance is very good. A 2 dB peak out at 10 kHz doesn't come off as bright. I would have no trouble recommending them to anyone who wants a speaker in that form factor. Besides, with the consistency between on and off axis response, you can EQ to your desired spectral curve, and the power response will closely match the on-axis response.

I wonder if there is enough info in the spinorama for someone from Harman to comment further about the expected sound of a speaker with those measurements, and how it might compare to some of the other speakers discussed in this thread.
spkr_diy is offline  
post #1092 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 07:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
I see what you're saying.

Here's the same speaker, Canadian National Research Council anechoic measurements. Starting from 45 degrees to 75 degrees off-axis.

Attachment 2517658

Very different from the Audioholics measurements, and appears to supports the rated spec, or very close to it.
The groundplane in this case is more dependable. The NRC chamber is only rated for accuracy down to 80hz and tends to not be consistent on rear ported speakers. The on-axis curve from the NRC is missing here and that would be the most accurate in determining the level of the bass relative to the upper frequencies (but still not as good as the groundplane). The 45/60/75 degree curves overstate the bass extension since the speaker is narrowing in directivity as you move upward in frequency.

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #1093 of 5323 Old 01-28-2019, 09:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
The groundplane in this case is more dependable. The NRC chamber is only rated for accuracy down to 80hz and tends to not be consistent on rear ported speakers. The on-axis curve from the NRC is missing here and that would be the most accurate in determining the level of the bass relative to the upper frequencies (but still not as good as the groundplane). The 45/60/75 degree curves overstate the bass extension since the speaker is narrowing in directivity as you move upward in frequency.
Thanks for the insights.

But please help me understand something: how does an off-axis measurement overstate bass extension? Why wouldn't bass extension remain the same? After all, we're talking about frequencies that are basically omni-directional.

Another thought: maybe the NRC measurement more closely resembles an end-user's in-room extension? I realize this means we should take care to compare ground plane with ground plane and anechoic with anechoic measurements and not confuse the two.

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

Last edited by Soulburner; 01-28-2019 at 09:33 PM.
Soulburner is online now  
post #1094 of 5323 Old 01-29-2019, 10:04 AM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Thanks for the insights.

But please help me understand something: how does an off-axis measurement overstate bass extension? Why wouldn't bass extension remain the same? After all, we're talking about frequencies that are basically omni-directional.

Another thought: maybe the NRC measurement more closely resembles an end-user's in-room extension? I realize this means we should take care to compare ground plane with ground plane and anechoic with anechoic measurements and not confuse the two.
All anechoic chambers exhibit increasing errors below the cutoff frequency, usually around 80 to 60 Hz for 3 to 4 ft wedges. The NRC chamber and the Harman chamber were both calibrated using closed box woofers with the reference being measured on a 10 m tower. A properly conducted ground plane measurement is an alternative reference, and should yield the same result. Because of differing interaction with the residual low-frequency modes in the chamber, loudspeakers with ports and multiple woofers can produce errors, and for this reason the reference metric for chamber measurements is the sound power, not on any specific axis. As I discussed much earlier in this thread, very tall speakers may need to be repositioned to yield more accurate low frequency curves. However, once inside a listening room these errors vanish in comparison to the standing wave issues. Some LF measurements are in error because they lack the frequency resolution - typically time-windowed measures. Chamber measurements are 1/20-octave over the whole frequency range.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1095 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 12:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Rick Craig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Garner, NC
Posts: 779
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Thanks for the insights.

But please help me understand something: how does an off-axis measurement overstate bass extension? Why wouldn't bass extension remain the same? After all, we're talking about frequencies that are basically omni-directional.

Another thought: maybe the NRC measurement more closely resembles an end-user's in-room extension? I realize this means we should take care to compare ground plane with ground plane and anechoic with anechoic measurements and not confuse the two.
Sorry for my late reply. If you look at the off-axis plots the bass becomes more elevated compared to the upper range as the dispersion narrows in the higher frequencies. If you average the 300hz-5K range (which is in a downward trend) then the -3dB point for the bass tends to look better. Due to the limitations of anechoic measurements an outside groundplane (well away from any boundaries) or nearfield measurement (Don Keele's method) are the best to use. The Audioholics reviewer doesn't give much information on the groundplane measurement - distance and if any smoothing or gating was applied.

Selah Audio

Thinking Inside the Box...
Rick Craig is offline  
post #1096 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 01:49 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post
Sorry for my late reply. If you look at the off-axis plots the bass becomes more elevated compared to the upper range as the dispersion narrows in the higher frequencies. If you average the 300hz-5K range (which is in a downward trend) then the -3dB point for the bass tends to look better. Due to the limitations of anechoic measurements an outside groundplane (well away from any boundaries) or nearfield measurement (Don Keele's method) are the best to use. The Audioholics reviewer doesn't give much information on the groundplane measurement - distance and if any smoothing or gating was applied.
This is why I don't think stating performance in terms of +/- is very useful. There is so much that can go on with the curve - that is where the real information is.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is online now  
post #1097 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 02:03 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
This is why I don't think stating performance in terms of +/- is very useful. There is so much that can go on with the curve - that is where the real information is.
+/- 3 dB is telling us absolutely nothing of value. Mostly we are not told how or where it is measured. Even an authenticated on-axis 2m anechoic pedigree still is an insult to our intelligence. A curve is vastly more informative. A family of curves, a spinorama being one example, is truly useful. Check out the attachment to my much earlier post #220 . If you have my book, Figure 12.3 shows just how useless standard specifications are.
Q&A, avkv, DS-21 and 1 others like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1098 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 05:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 658
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 252 Post(s)
Liked: 480
Quote:
If you have my book, Figure 12.3 shows just how useless standard specifications are
I had to chuckle when you stated tire manufacturers give more useful information about their products on the side of a tire than what many audio companies release about their products.
unretarded and mik2h like this.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #1099 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 07:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Here is a 4pi anechoic spinorama on the M16. The little bass hump is a gift to those without subs
Hi Floyd, I am debating between a C208 and a C205 for center setup. Your previous post with the C205 spin seems to have expired from whatever photo hosting site you used. Do you still have the C205 by any chance? If you still have it I would appreciate it.

Also, is there any thoughts on a F226BE? The F228/F208 cabinet is too wide
driedmango is offline  
post #1100 of 5323 Old 01-30-2019, 08:30 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 837
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 876 Post(s)
Liked: 3083
Quote:
Originally Posted by driedmango View Post
Hi Floyd, I am debating between a C208 and a C205 for center setup. Your previous post with the C205 spin seems to have expired from whatever photo hosting site you used. Do you still have the C205 by any chance? If you still have it I would appreciate it.

Also, is there any thoughts on a F226BE? The F228/F208 cabinet is too wide
Sorry to disappoint you, but I did not post those spins. Most likely it would be Rex Anderson or John Schuermann. I don't have them. In general a three way center wins - better horizontal dispersion, and better power handling - but both of these sound good.

I have no personal experience with the new Be speakers - I'm retired, so my contact with new products is reduced. I would be very surprised if there was much difference between those speakers other than bass extension and power handling. If you are using bass management and subs even that difference is reduced.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1101 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 12:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,176
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
I'm not sure this is a suitable question for the thread, but just in case, a question for the experts here:


Can we identify what attributes of a speaker are responsible for the "scale" of the sound?


By "scale" I mean the sense that sonic images both in size and in acoustic density and weight sound "bigger" or "smaller" - more "life sized" vs "toy-sized."


It's been my experience and the experience of most I know, that small stand mounted speakers often soundstage and image easily, but that the sound they produce seems miniturized. Play a jazz recording and it's like the drums, sax, trumpet, etc have been shrunk down in size.



Whereas in many cases a significantly larger floor standing speaker will cast a sound that seems much larger - not only the scale of the soundstage, but the sense that voices and instruments seem more convincingly big and full, closer to the real thing.


An obvious place to point to would be the greater bass extension presumed in the floor standing speaker. But in my experiencing trying to pair subwoofers with smaller stand mounted speakers, and in most pairings I've heard, just adding a subwoofer doesn't seem to truly change the scale of the sound. Mostly I hear the same smaller scaled images but with more bass extension. The sound does become a bit more dimensional and spacious, but the SCALE of the sound, the size and heft of the sonic images, seems to remain mostly what it was without the subwoofer.


But put up that bigger box and...boom...even if the sound doesn't reach all the way down to 20 Hz like a sub wood, the scale of the sound is so much bigger.


This kind of thing seemed the case even comparing a slightly bigger speaker, like my Thiel 3.7 against my Thiel 2.7, which is a smaller version of the 3.7. Bass extension is rated down to 33Hz for the bigger speaker, and a very close 35Hz for the smaller version. I wouldn't think the extra 2 Hz would entail a big difference in sound, at least intuitively. But the scale of the sound was significantly larger from the bigger 3.7 - soundstage more vast, image sizes and weight bigger and more 'real sized' for instruments and voices.


So I'm curious what could account for this class of observations, if accurate. Do bigger cabinets, bigger drivers, sheer scale of a speaker somehow contribute?


Another example are the Devore Speakers I've been evaluating this year, the O/96 and O/93 models with the 10 inch woofers and wide baffles:


http://www.devorefidelity.com/


One absolutely distinct characteristic in their sound is the sense of fullness and the larger instrumental image size. Drum sets sound BIG more like a real drum set than many skinnier speakers with similar frequency response, same with acoustic guitars, the scale of piano, sax, you name it. And I wonder what accounts for this.
Tom Roper and Scotth3886 like this.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1102 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 12:25 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,549
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by r harkness View Post


can we identify what attributes of a speaker are responsible for the "scale" of the sound?

^^+1

???

HDR Colorist and Conversions
INTO THE CAVE OF WONDERS
Directed by MANUEL BENITO DE VALLE Produced by PEDRO PABLO FIGUEROA
Cast MANUEL ANGEL REINA, CLAUDIA GARROTE
LOVETHEFRAME STORIES, SOUNDTRACKS AND FILMS
Tom Roper is offline  
post #1103 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 12:52 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Soulburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 4,904
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 1635
Usually the term "scale" refers to size. If that's what you meant, I think it was established what makes speakers produce smaller, sharper images, versus larger, more diffuse effects: dispersion.

HT: Samsung PN64H5000 (recommended settings) | NAD T758 V3 | Buchardt S400 (2) | Emotiva E2 (2) | Rythmik Audio F12 (2)
Soulburner is online now  
post #1104 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 01:03 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
Sighted bias plays a substantial role in this.
unretarded likes this.
TimVG is offline  
post #1105 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 01:14 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,520
Mentioned: 93 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2978 Post(s)
Liked: 1743
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthomas47 View Post
If I were you, I would just use any stereo recording with PLII (or PLIIx). You could just turn-off the surround channels in the Speaker Configuration menu, leaving only the front three on. Then, you could use the center width function in PLII to collapse all of the sound into the center channel. That would let you listen to mono recordings of anything you like, and wouldn't interfere with your Audyssey calibration at all.
If the recordings are already in mono, no need to process them at all. Just play one channel of them from whatever speaker you want to use. If the starting point is stereo, then isolating the center output of a PLII decoder will not represent the sum of L+R -- when Center Width is set to minimum, it's the same as Movie mode -- common mode audio is steered to the center output. (That may not be what you meant, but I was unsure when you wrote: "let you listen to mono recordings of anything you like.")

Luckily, for mono speaker testing, no need to use mono recordings and not even technically necessary to downmix stereo to mono. Just don't use older Beatles recordings where the vocals were panned to one channel. If you do want to use an AV processor for downmixing, try Party mode. That usually sums L and R into the center output.

Deadwood II Theater (Previous Deadwood Theater HTOM)
Anthem AVM 60 7.4.4; Classé SSP-800 PLIIx 7.4; MiniDSP OpenDRC-AN
Oppo UDP-203; Oppo BDP-93; Win10 media PC w/Roon+Kodi; Roku Ultra; DirecTV Genie
Adam Audio S3V/S3H LCR, KEF Ci200QS 4 srrnd, Tannoy Di6 DC 4 hts, Hsu ULS-15 4 subs
JVC RS520; Stewart Cima Neve screen 125" diag 2.35:1, MLP at 115"
Roger Dressler is online now  
post #1106 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 01:41 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,176
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner View Post
Usually the term "scale" refers to size. If that's what you meant, I think it was established what makes speakers produce smaller, sharper images, versus larger, more diffuse effects: dispersion.

I'm familiar with the ways speakers with different dispersion sound (I've owned everything from electrostatics to Omnis and much in between). But that doesn't seem to fully explain what I hear. The bigger MBL omni speakers produce far larger sonic images of weight and scale than the smaller ones, yet both have omni-directional dispersion.


In the case of directly comparing the Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 speakers, they are the same design, same coax tweeter and mids, same design goal etc, and both produce notably precise images. Yet the precise images of the 3.7 are bigger precise images than the 2.7. I could say the same of the old Dunlavy models as well, which were controlled dispersion. The Devore speakers I referenced are fairly narrow dispersion at the top of their band - high end drops off if you move too much out of the sweet spot for the tweeters. Yet, again, the scale of something like a piano or acoustic guitar sounds like a larger object in front of you producing the sound, vs many other speakers I auditioned with similar frequency response. (That's been a theme reported in almost every review or user report about those speakers as well).



In the case of the Devore speakers one explanation I've heard is the way the wide front baffle ends up aiming/reflecting more of the sound toward the listener, rather than narrower baffles where the sound sort of is allowed to wrap around to the sides. I don't know if there is any merit in that and I've likely tortured the explanation in either case. But the Devore does seem to share this characteristics of "richness/fullness" with other speakers I've heard with the wider baffle like Harbeth and some others. As opposed to the slim-line speaker design much more in vogue.
Tom Roper likes this.

Last edited by R Harkness; 01-31-2019 at 02:00 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1107 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 01:57 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,176
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Sighted bias plays a substantial role in this.



I know that sighted bias is always an issue, and one does not easily escape it without blind testing.


That said:



I almost always spend some time listening to a speaker with my eyes closed. I've long done this test and it seems to be somewhat revealing. It's not perfect of course because I still know what speaker is playing. Nonetheless I close my eyes and try to concentrate only on the sound, and then ask myself about the character of the sound I'm hearing. Sometimes at stores, or audio shows, I'll be in front of a large speaker that looks impressive. But I'll close my eyes and after a while think "Ok, what size speaker does this actually sound like." And to my surprise sometimes I've heard large speakers produce images that actually make me think "If I didn't know better I'd think I was listening to a boom box sized speaker, both in terms of image size and quality."



So in my experience with the eyes-closed test, it can certainly change the experience. But generally speaking, even with my eyes closed, most bigger speakers tend to sound bigger. I very often listened to the Thiel 3.7 and 2.7 with my eyes closed and they bigger model sounded vast, with symphonic, big band, you name it. I've had to acclimate to the smaller scale of sound from the other model.
Tom Roper likes this.

Last edited by R Harkness; 01-31-2019 at 02:24 PM.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1108 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 01:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 290
I was wondering about this as well, though I don't have any personal experience in this area.

"can we identify what attributes of a speaker are responsible for the "scale" of the sound?"

I will wait for Dr. Toole and others to respond.

Thanks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is online now  
post #1109 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 04:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,402
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 956 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
I'm not sure this is a suitable question for the thread, but just in case, a question for the experts here:


Can we identify what attributes of a speaker are responsible for the "scale" of the sound?


By "scale" I mean the sense that sonic images both in size and in acoustic density and weight sound "bigger" or "smaller" - more "life sized" vs "toy-sized."


It's been my experience and the experience of most I know, that small stand mounted speakers often soundstage and image easily, but that the sound they produce seems miniturized. Play a jazz recording and it's like the drums, sax, trumpet, etc have been shrunk down in size.



Whereas in many cases a significantly larger floor standing speaker will cast a sound that seems much larger - not only the scale of the soundstage, but the sense that voices and instruments seem more convincingly big and full, closer to the real thing.


An obvious place to point to would be the greater bass extension presumed in the floor standing speaker. But in my experiencing trying to pair subwoofers with smaller stand mounted speakers, and in most pairings I've heard, just adding a subwoofer doesn't seem to truly change the scale of the sound. Mostly I hear the same smaller scaled images but with more bass extension. The sound does become a bit more dimensional and spacious, but the SCALE of the sound, the size and heft of the sonic images, seems to remain mostly what it was without the subwoofer.


But put up that bigger box and...boom...even if the sound doesn't reach all the way down to 20 Hz like a sub wood, the scale of the sound is so much bigger.


This kind of thing seemed the case even comparing a slightly bigger speaker, like my Thiel 3.7 against my Thiel 2.7, which is a smaller version of the 3.7. Bass extension is rated down to 33Hz for the bigger speaker, and a very close 35Hz for the smaller version. I wouldn't think the extra 2 Hz would entail a big difference in sound, at least intuitively. But the scale of the sound was significantly larger from the bigger 3.7 - soundstage more vast, image sizes and weight bigger and more 'real sized' for instruments and voices.


So I'm curious what could account for this class of observations, if accurate. Do bigger cabinets, bigger drivers, sheer scale of a speaker somehow contribute?


Another example are the Devore Speakers I've been evaluating this year, the O/96 and O/93 models with the 10 inch woofers and wide baffles:


http://www.devorefidelity.com/


One absolutely distinct characteristic in their sound is the sense of fullness and the larger instrumental image size. Drum sets sound BIG more like a real drum set than many skinnier speakers with similar frequency response, same with acoustic guitars, the scale of piano, sax, you name it. And I wonder what accounts for this.
Do you experience this scale difference at low volume as well?

I am wonderimg if larger speaker's ability to produce higher volume has anything to do with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is online now  
post #1110 of 5323 Old 01-31-2019, 04:46 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,176
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2805 Post(s)
Liked: 2726
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post
Do you experience this scale difference at low volume as well?

I am wonderimg if larger speaker's ability to produce higher volume has anything to do with it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

With the Devores, yes. I do find the scale on my Thiel 2.7s opens up a bit more with higher volume. Though not to the point of the bigger 3.7s.
R Harkness is online now  
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