How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 38 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6377Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1111 of 5313 Old 01-31-2019, 06:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Tom Roper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 4,546
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 429
I've thought about the association of power and scale, big loudspeakers = big sound but also big loudspeakers usually carry higher efficiency ratings. I wonder sometimes if I am adjusting to the fullness, the louder sounds, playing louder than I think, or louder than I did, without being especially aware of the actual amplifier output or SPL, in other words is it playing louder and I'm simply adjusting to it? Not good for long term healthy audibility. But my power amp does have meters, I do look at them. It's surprising how loud 1 watt peaks can sound, 5 or 10 watt peaks is getting seriously loud and 200 watt peaks is not healthy or safe. That's a lot of variability, and I do correlate my best guess of peak output watts to my perception of loudness, and often it sounds louder to me that what the meters are indicating. (They are digital indicators btw.)

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1112 of 5313 Old 01-31-2019, 09:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
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.

Thank you !!!
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1113 of 5313 Old 01-31-2019, 09:43 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernCA View Post
Do you experience this scale difference at low volume as well?

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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I don't think so. I'm just as aware at low volume as high

Piccolo, flute, triangle, other instruments with a bell sound more 'point source' and large wood bodied instruments such as piano, cello, string bass with large sound boards sound appropriately large, but not necessarily loud with 'surface loudness' approximating the real instrument.

Good example in this one with the size and position of the bass versus size and position of the trumpet.

Very obvious on the first cut. Bass large at four or five feet tall with trumpet small and five or so feet up in the soundfield.

https://tidal.com/album/82250315


Last edited by Scotth3886; 01-31-2019 at 10:07 PM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1114 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 05:56 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Good example in this one with the size and position of the bass versus size and position of the trumpet.

Very obvious on the first cut. Bass large at four or five feet tall with trumpet small and five or so feet up in the soundfield.
The only reason for this is due to bass becoming omni lower than 100hz. What you are hearing from the trumpet being 5 feet high in the sound field is only because your brain is telling you that's where it belongs.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1115 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 06:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
The only reason for this is due to bass becoming omni lower than 100hz. What you are hearing from the trumpet being 5 feet high in the sound field is only because your brain is telling you that's where it belongs.

Or an instrument just as large as the double bass and covering approximately the same frequency range, but with a bell. Sound distinctly coming from more of a point source although a rather large one


Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-01-2019 at 06:12 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1116 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 06:15 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Or an instrument just as large as the double bass, but with a bell. Sound distinctly coming from a point source although a rather large one
I get what you are saying but height isn't recorded in stereo, and anything below 100hz is omni, so if you are hearing it as point source it's above 100hz or the resonate frequencies are above 100hz allowing for the instrument to be located in the soundstage.
unretarded likes this.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1117 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 06:36 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
I get what you are saying but height isn't recorded in stereo, and anything below 100hz is omni, so if you are hearing it as point source it's above 100hz or the resonate frequencies are above 100hz allowing for the instrument to be located in the soundstage.

Or could be a concept named 'surface loudness' causing these instruments to present themselves so differently in spite of covering approximately the same frequency range and being similar size.

From a post from 2017.

"German acoustician Ernst Petzold was responsible for formalizing the concept of surface loudness in the '20s. The fact that his ideas languished in obscurity for many years in no way diminishes the importance of the concept. He defined surface loudness as the ratio of sound power emitted by a surface to the area of that surface, measured in acoustic watts per unit area. Petzold reasoned that, because the auditory system projects sounds to the point of origin (after all, no one says, "I'm hearing the piano in my ear"), the direct sound not only determines direction, but the surface loudness of the source is responsible, at least in some part, for our perception of its spatial extent.

Petzold argued that our perception of the size and timbre of sounds was fundamentally shaped by their surface loudness. He used the analogy of candlepower to explain our perception of a trumpet's timbre as dazzling. Here is a great amount of acoustic power being radiated from a small surface. He generally ascribed the perception of "dazzling" to a sound source that combines great surface loudness with significant acoustic power. A piano, which possesses a low surface loudness combined with great acoustic output, would in his jargon be described as "conveying," which I take to mean hefty in outline.

There are two other possible combinations of surface loudness and sound energy. Low surface loudness together with small acoustic power is described as "filling" in timbre. Great surface loudness together with small acoustic output (ie, a piccolo) is described as "sharp." Petzold went on to explain that loudspeakers typically falsify the surface loudness of instruments they reproduce. For example, a piano reproduced by an 8" driver would be portrayed at an unnaturally high surface loudness—certainly much greater than that of the original instrument. From this standpoint, planar speakers more realistically approximate the surface loudness of such instruments as piano, cello, and the human voice. "
unretarded likes this.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-01-2019 at 06:47 AM.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1118 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:08 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Or could be a concept named 'surface loudness' causing these instruments to present themselves so differently in spite of covering approximately the same frequency range and being similar size.

From a post from 2017.

"German acoustician Ernst Petzold was responsible for formalizing the concept of surface loudness in the '20s. The fact that his ideas languished in obscurity for many years in no way diminishes the importance of the concept. He defined surface loudness as the ratio of sound power emitted by a surface to the area of that surface, measured in acoustic watts per unit area. Petzold reasoned that, because the auditory system projects sounds to the point of origin (after all, no one says, "I'm hearing the piano in my ear"), the direct sound not only determines direction, but the surface loudness of the source is responsible, at least in some part, for our perception of its spatial extent.

Petzold argued that our perception of the size and timbre of sounds was fundamentally shaped by their surface loudness. He used the analogy of candlepower to explain our perception of a trumpet's timbre as dazzling. Here is a great amount of acoustic power being radiated from a small surface. He generally ascribed the perception of "dazzling" to a sound source that combines great surface loudness with significant acoustic power. A piano, which possesses a low surface loudness combined with great acoustic output, would in his jargon be described as "conveying," which I take to mean hefty in outline.

There are two other possible combinations of surface loudness and sound energy. Low surface loudness together with small acoustic power is described as "filling" in timbre. Great surface loudness together with small acoustic output (ie, a piccolo) is described as "sharp." Petzold went on to explain that loudspeakers typically falsify the surface loudness of instruments they reproduce. For example, a piano reproduced by an 8" driver would be portrayed at an unnaturally high surface loudness—certainly much greater than that of the original instrument. From this standpoint, planar speakers more realistically approximate the surface loudness of such instruments as piano, cello, and the human voice. "
I'm not talking about the size and sound of an instrument, I'm talking about the perception that one can be taller or higher in the soundscape than another. It can't because stereo is only recorded in left and right. It can be perceived that way due to speaker design, but a trumpet won't be 5' high as a point source in the soundscape on a Planar speaker because the entire panel is producing the sound of the trumpet, so if the panel is 3' high the trumpet will be coming out of the entire 3' panel and not from the top of it. So again it's your brain telling you where the trumpet should be.
krabapple likes this.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1119 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
I'm not talking about the size and sound of an instrument, I'm talking about the perception that one can be taller or higher in the soundscape than another. It can't because stereo is only recorded in left and right. It can be perceived that way due to speaker design, but a trumpet won't be 5' high as a point source in the soundscape on a Planar speaker because the entire panel is producing the sound of the trumpet, so if the panel is 3' high the trumpet will be coming out of the entire 3' panel and not from the top of it. So again it's your brain telling you where the trumpet should be.

Tell ya what, next time you're in the neighborhood, give me a shout, and stop on by. Then please report back to the forum.
steven59 likes this.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1120 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,771
Mentioned: 182 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3771 Post(s)
Liked: 3378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Or could be a concept named 'surface loudness' causing these instruments to present themselves so differently in spite of covering approximately the same frequency range and being similar size.....

etzold argued that our perception of the size and timbre of sounds was fundamentally shaped by their surface loudness. He used the analogy of candlepower to explain our perception of a trumpet's timbre as dazzling. Here is a great amount of acoustic power being radiated from a small surface. He generally ascribed the perception of "dazzling" to a sound source that combines great surface loudness with significant acoustic power. A piano, which possesses a low surface loudness combined with great acoustic output, would in his jargon be described as "conveying," which I take to mean hefty in outline.
A speaker has the same "surface loudness" for every instrument, varying only in acoustic output. So if a speaker has the same surface size for every instrument, it doesn't appear his theory would apply to speakers. But maybe I missed something?
MordredKLB and Lonewolf7002 like this.
Gooddoc is offline  
post #1121 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:27 AM
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 R Harkness View Post
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.
Simply closing your eyes unfortunately still makes the test 'invalid' from a scientific POV. I enjoy sighted tests from time to time as well, simply because true blind tests are very hard to implement correctly. Even when trying to remain objective, one has to take everything with a grain of salt.

The truth is that there is no correlation between the physical size of a speaker, and the size of the 'image' it projects. The image is something that is embedded in the recording. The rest is a matter of dispersion angle compared to the radiating surface, and nothing else. Bigger speakers, with larger low frequency components and perhaps horns/large waveguides, often play deeper, or louder (or a tradeoff between the two) and can play louder without strain (and usually with higher effiency) altogether.
TimVG is offline  
post #1122 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post
A speaker has the same "surface loudness" for every instrument, varying only in acoustic output. So if a speaker has the same surface size for every instrument, it doesn't appear his theory would apply to speakers. But maybe I missed something?

Thanks
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1123 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:29 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Tell ya what, next time you're in the neighborhood, give me a shout, and stop on by. Then please report back to the forum.
Well I live on the other side of the country so that won't be happening. But I have had the pleasure of listening to ML Summits, Vista, and Vantages, loved them but lets not pretend that stereo produces height effects.
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1124 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:30 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
Well I live on the other side of the country so that won't be happening. But I have had the pleasure of listening to ML Summits, Vista, and Vantages, loved them but lets not pretend that stereo produces height effects.

Sure it does.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1125 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Sure it does.
OK
Bottlemech2 is offline  
post #1126 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:35 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bottlemech2 View Post
OK

Thanks
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1127 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:48 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,172
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2802 Post(s)
Liked: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Simply closing your eyes unfortunately still makes the test 'invalid' from a scientific POV.

Of course. As I already indicated.




Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post

The truth is that there is no correlation between the physical size of a speaker, and the size of the 'image' it projects.

Sorry, but I have to disagree - too much experience, mine and almost any other person's, goes against this.


There is a completely obvious-to-anyone difference in the scale of sound provided by my tiny Spendor 3/5 bookshelf speakers vs my big floor standing speakers. They are very spacious, but instruments sound like little toy sizes, on the big speakers they sound more life-sized. If I put on the Buena Vista Social club recording - a very good recording capturing the feel of Cuban music played in a specific acoustic, and I close my eyes, on the small Spendors it sounds like I'm hearing a small version of instruments and singers. Through the big Thiels it's like the room in front of me disappears and it's replaced by an actual life-sized studio and musicians. It's a huge difference.


I was recently directly comparing some other monitors I own - Waveform Mach MC monitors which are particularly good at providing smooth evenly radiated power in to a room (a focus of their design), probably even moreso than the big Thiels, and the difference in the scale and apparent size of instruments was obvious for the Thiels. It's why in fact I keep gravitating to larger floor standing speakers every time I try small stand mounted speakers.






Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
The image is something that is embedded in the recording. The rest is a matter of dispersion angle compared to the radiating surface, and nothing else. Bigger speakers, with larger low frequency components and perhaps horns/large waveguides, often play deeper, or louder (or a tradeoff between the two) and can play louder without strain (and usually with higher effiency) altogether.

I've listened to the MBL omni statement speakers and the most prominent character over my own stand mounted version was the utterly massive scale of sound the big speakers could produce. It's like going from a Lilliputian to Gulliver. It's not that they had the same small image sizes...but with more bass. It's that a symphony or jazz band could sound like the scale of an actual symphony or jazz band, like you are there, in a way that I've never experienced from the smaller version, even with a subwoofer added. Again, both radiate omnidirectionally, but the apparent scale of sound is ridiculously obvious.



Anyone walking around an audio show experiences this as well - even a room with small bookshelf speakers that "sound bigger than they look" don't compete with another room with huge statement speakers that can almost convincingly produce the impression of a life-sizedlive band or orchestra.
Scotth3886 likes this.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1128 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 07:58 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Of course. As I already indicated.

Sorry, but I have to disagree - too much experience, mine and almost any other person's, goes against this.

There is a completely obvious-to-anyone difference in the scale of sound provided by my tiny Spendor 3/5 bookshelf speakers vs my big floor standing speakers. They are very spacious, but instruments sound like little toy sizes, on the big speakers they sound more life-sized. I was recently directly comparing some other monitors I own - Waveform Mach MC monitors which are particularly good at providing smooth evenly radiated power in to a room (a focus of their design), probably even moreso than the big Thiels, and the difference in the scale and apparent size of instruments was obvious for the Thiels. It's why in fact I keep gravitating to larger floor standing speakers every time I try small stand mounted speakers.

I've listened to the MBL omni statement speakers and the most prominent character over my own stand mounted version was the utterly massive scale of sound the big speakers could produce. It's like going from a Lilliputian to Gulliver. It's not that they had the same small image sizes...but with more bass. It's that a symphony or jazz band could sound like the scale of an actual symphony or jazz band, like you are there, in a way that I've never experienced from the smaller version, even with a subwoofer added. Again, both radiate omnidirectionally, but the apparent scale of sound is ridiculously obvious.

Anyone walking around an audio show experiences this as well - even a room with small bookshelf speakers that "sound bigger than they look" don't compete with another room with huge statement speakers that can almost convincingly produce the impression of a life-sizedlive band or orchestra.

What is going on with the AVS system that it usually leaves 5 or 6 lines between paragraphs? Anyway, I deleted the excess carriage returns (what us oldsters call it) in the material I quoted.

Anyway, we're not going to win any popularity contest with this opinion in a Harman thread, but I (almost) totally agree with you or I wouldn't put up with some of the negatives that I do with certain speakers I've owned.

Now I've heard physically large speakers that won't scale, but some can. My issue with the large MBLs is partial duplication of the soundstage on the 'footballs'. I'm sure they can be placed in such a way as the won't do that, but I've never personally heard it. The smaller ones, like you have, do a much better job of a cohesive sound stage, but granted, overall with smaller scale than the big ones.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1129 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:01 AM
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
There is simply no scientific evidence to support your claim. In fact the evidence denies your claim. in Floyd Toole's book, where a small sub/sat system beat a large floorstander in the blind test, while it had lost convincingly in the sighted test. I also recall an anecdote where people at Harman thought they were listening to the M2, while in reality the small 705 was playing.

In fact all of the anecdotes you yourself bring up, involve you knowing what is playing at all times.

What is your opinion then on in-wall speakers? Since the wall is in fact the baffle, they must sound huge, yes?
avkv likes this.
TimVG is offline  
post #1130 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
There is simply no scientific evidence to support your claim. In fact the evidence denies your claim. in Floyd Toole's book, where a small sub/sat system beat a large floorstander in the blind test, while it had lost convincingly in the sighted test. I also recall an anecdote where people at Harman thought they were listening to the M2, while in reality the small 705 was playing.

In fact all of the anecdotes you yourself bring up, involve you knowing what is playing at all times.

What is your opinion then on in-wall speakers? Since the wall is in fact the baffle, they must sound huge, yes?
No

Anyway, cool thanks. We do not agree.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1131 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:36 AM
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
While I enjoy a good back and forth, a quick reminder: this thread is about what the science shows, as per the topic title.
Perhaps a seperate thread could be started about 'how to choose a loudspeaker based on opinions' - feel free to start one.

Feel free to disagree with me or anyone, but please bring some objective evidence to the table to support any claims made.
Q&A, avkv, djp2k7 and 2 others like this.
TimVG is offline  
post #1132 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:37 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,172
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2802 Post(s)
Liked: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
There is simply no scientific evidence to support your claim. In fact the evidence denies your claim. in Floyd Toole's book, where a small sub/sat system beat a large floorstander in the blind test, while it had lost convincingly in the sighted test. I also recall an anecdote where people at Harman thought they were listening to the M2, while in reality the small 705 was playing.

Oh I've had similar experiences. But exceptions don't prove the rule, and by far the experience points to the opposite conclusion.


To be clear, are you contending that if you take these small MBL omnis:




And add, say, a JL subwoofer to extend the sound to 20Hz...





That they will then produce a size and scale of sound - e.g. a big band or orchestra - just like these large MBL "EXTREME" omnis?


R Harkness is online now  
post #1133 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
While I enjoy a good back and forth, a quick reminder: this thread is about what the science shows, as per the topic title.
Perhaps a seperate thread could be started about 'how to choose a loudspeaker based on opinions' - feel free to start one.

Feel free to disagree with me or anyone, but please bring some objective evidence to the table to support any claims made.
Cool. We do not agree.
avkv likes this.
Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1134 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,226
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3994 Post(s)
Liked: 2462
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post
Oh I've had similar experiences. But exceptions don't prove the rule, and by far the experience points to the opposite conclusion.


To be clear, are you contending that if you take these small MBL omnis:




And add, say, a JL subwoofer to extend the sound to 20Hz...


That they will then produce a size and scale of sound - e.g. a big band or orchestra - just like these large MBL "EXTREME" omnis?




The times that I've heard the Extremes they've been positioned similar to this. They do sound bigger than the smaller ones as was the case with the below versus the smaller ones with a sub in the Jolida room

Scotth3886 is offline  
post #1135 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,256
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3435 Post(s)
Liked: 4124
Is that a speaker or the mother of all flux capacitors?
Molon_Labe is online now  
post #1136 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:50 AM
Advanced Member
 
Lonewolf7002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 589
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 460 Post(s)
Liked: 537
Does anyone know where one can listen to Revel speakers in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada area? I'm wanting to listen to some of these speakers that have been discussed but haven't had much luck with Revel. I spent some time listening to the Dynaudio M10s that were suggested here, as well as the Dynaudio Excite X18. While there were some things I really liked about them, overall I wasn't happy with them. Since KEF speakers are supposed to measure well I had a listen to the LS50, R300, Q750B and Q950B. I was really disappointed with the Q950B and even checked if they were wired out of phase. They weren't, but they were not a nice speaker to listen to. The LS50s and R300s were very clear and seemed to disappear, but the more I listen to bookshelves the more I realize I want to stick with towers. I don't know what measurements are available for the Dynaudio speakers but I plan on looking up the KEF speakers and see how the measurements stack up to what I heard. I'd love to listen to some Revels soon too.


Although I have to say, the more I listen to these speakers, the more I realize that the speakers I have at home aren't so bad!



Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Otherwise, I will always be skeptical of results obtained by a manufacturer using employees "trained" to hear a specific sound. The "training" may appear on the surface to be basic and simple, but we all know how these things go in corporate America. It has to be a feather in an employees' cap to be selected as a "trained listener." The faster one gets at identifying the Harman sound and then "preferring" that sound, the more solidified that employees becomes as a trained listener. Certainly a trained employee would not want to lose their status as a trained listener, and therefore would try to become more and more proficient at hearing the Harman sound. Pretty soon, you have a bunch of trained listeners who are quite adept at identifying the Harman, (or Revel or JBL, etc.) sound and being able to differentiate it from other speakers that don't sound that way. At the very least, this is a possibility, and a reason to be skeptical of Harman's science. The fact that little of it has been verified by other researchers makes me even more skeptical. As Kal Rubinson said earlier in the thread: "Skepticism is essential to science."

That's a really fun story! How about verified testing done at an independent government research lab, done for the sake of research and not for any particular manufacturer? And done long before Harman or other companies did anything with the research? How about science that has been peer reviewed and even put into ANSI standards by those peers? The science was solid for decades before Harman got involved. A whole lot of facts have to be ignored for your fictional story above to work. Unwillingness to acknowledge facts and only cherry picking information that fits your story undermines any credibility you think you may have.

Samsung KS8000, Denon AVR-X3300W, Xbox One X, Samsung UBD-K8500 4K bluray player, Himedia Q5 Pro android box
Lonewolf7002 is offline  
post #1137 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,172
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2802 Post(s)
Liked: 2720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonewolf7002 View Post
Does anyone know where one can listen to Revel speakers in the Toronto, Ontario, Canada area?

I'm in Toronto and I listened to Revel speakers at Bay Bloor Radio (not sure if they still carry them, it was a year or two ago).


And I also listened to them at Audio Eden:


http://www.audioeden.com/brands/4593082605
avkv and Lonewolf7002 like this.
R Harkness is online now  
post #1138 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 08:54 AM
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 R Harkness View Post
Oh I've had similar experiences. But exceptions don't prove the rule, and by far the experience points to the opposite conclusion.


To be clear, are you contending that if you take these small MBL omnis:




And add, say, a JL subwoofer to extend the sound to 20Hz...





That they will then produce a size and scale of sound - e.g. a big band or orchestra - just like these large MBL "EXTREME" omnis?



Your first two pictures did not come up but I took a look at the MBL website to get an idea - unforunately no measurements on these speakers are provided so my guess is a good as yours. If there is a substantial difference in presentation, comprehensive measurements would provide us with a answer. The MBL website does not seem to offer any specs at all. I remain by my point however, that physical difference in size is not the reason for potential differences in terms of 'image size'. Spacial cues are attributed to the higher treble range and dispersion in this regard is what would make the most substantial difference. Already both are omni in this regard (at least in the horizontal plane). Bass accounts for a great deal of subjective impressions, and can have a profound influence on the entire experience. My first guess would be to look at what's happening below 200-300hz (in-room).
Q&A and Gooddoc like this.
TimVG is offline  
post #1139 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 09:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Molon_Labe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,256
Mentioned: 108 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3435 Post(s)
Liked: 4124
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post
Spacial cues are attributed to the higher treble range and dispersion in this regard is what would make the most substantial difference.
Then would not a larger wave-guide like the pro cinema 4722 not sound larger than a lsr708? I certainly found this to be true in my room. The wider horn provides a wider sound stage to my ears. The 708 is cleaner, but the 4722 came across as wider. Probably a poor choice for words. That is why I decided to go with M2's on the front to capture back that huge sound stage I lost after selling the 4722s. Maybe its psycho-acoustics at work but others have noticed it.
shivaji likes this.
Molon_Labe is online now  
post #1140 of 5313 Old 02-01-2019, 09:07 AM
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 Molon_Labe View Post
Then would not a larger wave-guide like the pro cinema 4722 not sound larger than a lsr708? I certainly found this to be true in my room. The wider horn provides a wider sound stage to my ears. The 708 is cleaner, but the 4722 came across as wider. Probably a poor choice for words. That is why I decided to go with M2's on the front to capture back that huge sound stage I lost after selling the 4722s. Maybe its psycho-acoustics at work but others have noticed it.
We're talking about width in terms of angle - not in terms of absolute size :-)
The 708p has slightly wider dispersion than the 4722 if I'm correct - correct me if I'm wrong though.

As I said before. Harman fooled a bunch of people playing the 705, while everyone (I believe incl. Floyd Toole) thought it was the M2. Perhaps he'll comment on this on his next visit to this thread. The M2 would of course crush the 705 when turning up the volume. Maybe it's just fear of missing out perhaps? We're all guilty of that I suppose!
TimVG 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