How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows - Page 55 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 6539Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1621 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 02:46 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,869
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 1657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post
I am going to cheat a little here. I see the mono stereo imaging thing come up alot. I took Jerry Lemays Advanced HAA course. As part of the course, we had to adjust speakers to get the best imaging. We were using Genelec but it applied to any of the different well designed speakers. Very very small adjustments affected how the speakers imaged in the room. At first imaging was not that good but with care and time, image became “3 demensional” on certain recordings The speaker mattered but adjustments in the room as well as the recordings mattered.

What I take from your experience with the "very very small adjustments" affecting the imaging is that one needs to be in exactly the perfect axis of the speakers pair's dispersion to get the optimal effect. Is that perfect axis the direct, on-axis dispersion or some point off the direct axis? Does a speaker with a more consistent off-axis dispersion have a better chance to portray the ideal imaging? Or, if you can find the ideal on-axis or off-axis dispersion, is that most all that is required? Obviously, the room reflections play some role as do the seating and intra-speaker distances, but is the on/off-axis response the primary determinant? (BTW, my experience tells me that for *most* speakers the direct on-axis response is the ideal response, but certainly there are some speakers that benefit from more or less toe-in than others. I assume that is because their off-axis response is actually better than their on-axis response.)



If that is the case, there might be a way to measure a speaker pairs' ability to image, at least in an idealized way. Maybe one could place the speakers an exact, idealized distance from the mic, (equilateral triangle), set them to an exact level-match, (within 0.1 dB?), and measure the time domain and frequency domain of the individual speakers, and then the combined responses of the pair. One would need to take the room out of the equation as much as possible, (an anechoic chamber would probably be best, but room symmetry and acoustic absorption could also be highly beneficial.) This would need to be followed by some subjective listening test to confirm the results. This could help identify the ideal toe-in for a set of speakers, or it could be used to indentify differences between speakers and their ability to image and soundstage. We could call it the "StereoRama" or the "Pair-orama"!

@Floyd Toole ???



Craig
Scotth3886 and steven59 like this.

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
My System
craig john is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1622 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 02:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,589
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4192 Post(s)
Liked: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
What I take from your experience with the "very very small adjustments" affecting the imaging is that one needs to be in exactly the perfect axis of the speakers pair's dispersion to get the optimal effect. Is that perfect axis the direct, on-axis dispersion or some point off the direct axis? Does a speaker with a more consistent off-axis dispersion have a better chance to portray the ideal imaging? Or, if you can find the ideal on-axis or off-axis dispersion, is that most all that is required? Obviously, the room reflections play some role as do the seating and intra-speaker distances, but is the on/off-axis response the primary determinant? (BTW, my experience tells me that for *most* speakers the direct on-axis response is the ideal response, but certainly there are some speakers that benefit from more or less toe-in than others. I assume that is because their off-axis response is actually better than their on-axis response.)

If that is the case, there might be a way to measure a speaker pairs' ability to image, at least in an idealized way. Maybe one could place the speakers an exact, idealized distance from the mic, (equilateral triangle), set them to an exact level-match, (within 0.1 dB?), and measure the time domain and frequency domain of the individual speakers, and then the combined responses of the pair. One would need to take the room out of the equation as much as possible, (an anechoic chamber would probably be best, but room symmetry and acoustic absorption could also be highly beneficial.) This would need to be followed by some subjective listening test to confirm the results. This could help identify the ideal toe-in for a set of speakers, or it could be used to indentify differences between speakers and their ability to image and soundstage. We could call it the "StereoRama" or the "Pair-orama"!

@Floyd Toole ???

Craig
Exactly.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1623 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 04:36 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 884 Post(s)
Liked: 3127
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
What I take from your experience with the "very very small adjustments" affecting the imaging is that one needs to be in exactly the perfect axis of the speakers pair's dispersion to get the optimal effect. Is that perfect axis the direct, on-axis dispersion or some point off the direct axis? Does a speaker with a more consistent off-axis dispersion have a better chance to portray the ideal imaging? Or, if you can find the ideal on-axis or off-axis dispersion, is that most all that is required? Obviously, the room reflections play some role as do the seating and intra-speaker distances, but is the on/off-axis response the primary determinant? (BTW, my experience tells me that for *most* speakers the direct on-axis response is the ideal response, but certainly there are some speakers that benefit from more or less toe-in than others. I assume that is because their off-axis response is actually better than their on-axis response.)



If that is the case, there might be a way to measure a speaker pairs' ability to image, at least in an idealized way. Maybe one could place the speakers an exact, idealized distance from the mic, (equilateral triangle), set them to an exact level-match, (within 0.1 dB?), and measure the time domain and frequency domain of the individual speakers, and then the combined responses of the pair. One would need to take the room out of the equation as much as possible, (an anechoic chamber would probably be best, but room symmetry and acoustic absorption could also be highly beneficial.) This would need to be followed by some subjective listening test to confirm the results. This could help identify the ideal toe-in for a set of speakers, or it could be used to indentify differences between speakers and their ability to image and soundstage. We could call it the "StereoRama" or the "Pair-orama"!

@Floyd Toole ???



Craig
When you are talking about the L/R matching of speakers, that is something measurable. Of course, in the real world one does not have such measurements unless you do them yourself. Mismatched L & R loudspeakers are not uncommon. Revel Ultimas are measured and tweaked at the end of the production line - an added expense - to assist in the matter.

Of course, the direct sound is most important. It has long been known that it is the prime determinant of sound image localizations. In normal small listening rooms off axis sounds, reflections, are unlikely to seriously degrade the precedence effect by generating spurious images (see Figures 7.26 and 7.30). Neither do they seem to affect the location of a phantom center image (Figure7.28).

As far as the "precision" of the phantom image is concerned the frequency response of the loudspeaker in delivering the direct sound matters less than the matching of the loudspeakers. This makes sense because phantom images can be any conceivable sound, modified in any conceivable way, so long as it is identically modified by the L & R speakers. This, I suspect is responsible for many of the experiences people have when finding the right aiming point and position (which includes adjacent boundary effects, another complication (Chapter 9). If all is well aiming the speaker's on-axis output at the listener should yield the best result, but judging that is a subjective event, so the circle of confusion is included . Not all recordings will be the same.

I happen to know a bit about this as localization was the topic of my PhD thesis, from which peer reviewed papers emerged:
Sayers, B. McA. and F.E. Toole (1964). “Acoustical Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 36, pp. 1199-1205.
Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965a). “Laterization Judgments and the nature of Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 319-324.
Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965b). “Inferences of Neural Activity Associated with Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 769-779.

Then there is the acoustic crosstalk explained in Figure7.2. When listening to a broadband, dense spectrum, especially like pink noise, one can easily find the sweet spot subjectively by listening for the 2 kHz dulling of the sound when in it. Of course, this is not a virtue, but a fundamental flaw of stereo. The more dominant the direct sound the clearer is the audibility of the spectral notch. This is the featured artist. Some room reflections somewhat alleviate this effect, Figure 7.2(e).

Finally, anyone who thinks that eliminating all room reflections is a good idea has not listened in an anechoic chamber. That is another story.

There is more to say, most of which is in the book. Bye for now . . .
Floyd Toole is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1624 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 05:43 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 884 Post(s)
Liked: 3127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe they use left channel, but a head-on on-axis in the shuffler.
I am not speaking for the authors of the room EQ paper, but my opinion is that using the L loudspeaker makes sense because it challenges the EQ systems to deal with both room modes (more strongly energized near corners) and adjacent boundary effects. These are the dominant real-world issues at low frequencies, and low frequencies account for about 30% of our opinions of sound quality.

I can speak with some knowledge about the speaker shuffler, as it was constructed on my watch. As explained in the caption of Figure 3.13 four single speakers, four stereo pairs and three multichannel L,C Rs could be positionally substituted, thereby rendering room modes and boundary effects constant factors, the idea being that it would give listeners increased ability to hear the genuine differences between the loudspeakers. A single speaker can be compared at L, C or R locations, at various distances from side and rear walls. In the early days we did several mono tests with speakers in different locations and found that listening off center was itself a distraction - the featured artist is always directly ahead. As I have said repeatedly, listeners have consistently been more critical of loudspeaker performance in mono tests. It allows the binaural system to perceptually better separate the sound source from the room.

In my early experiments (1982) I used several randomized room locations, Figure 3.12, and also a positional substitution scheme (1985), Figure 7.11, which was used in stereo and mono, as explained in great detail. Recordings were found to be the dominant factor in imaging and soundstage. In the tests the speakers and room symmetry were very carefully matched.

For the past 34 years I have awaited any comparably detailed tests of sound quality, imaging, soundstage and space worthy of publication in a peer reviewed journal. Tick, tock . . . Meanwhile there are countless opinions.
epsilon, Muza, MordredKLB and 7 others like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1625 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 06:17 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
R Harkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 15,204
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2826 Post(s)
Liked: 2784
For me one of the most interesting finding's in Dr. Toole's work is the relevance of the direct sound of a speaker. Given how often we have been told "It's The Room, Dummy" and how "what you hear with any speaker system is dominated by the acoustics of the particular room in which it's placed," I often puzzled over why the same speaker tended to sound the same to me in many different rooms. Like a person speaking in different rooms, it was the same speaker, even though I could hear it was "speaking" in a different room. Dr. Toole's information has made much more sense of this for me.
Muza and Floyd Toole like this.
R Harkness is offline  
post #1626 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 06:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Steve Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Olympia, WA, USA
Posts: 2,047
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 455 Post(s)
Liked: 272
How to Choose a Loudspeaker -- What the Science Shows

Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post
Don't be rash. Think "interesting" patent.


It’s amazing to me that the Tekton Design Impact Monitor measured as well as it did when measured by John Atkinson: "This speaker offers a superbly even on-axis output in the midrange and treble, with only a couple of small dips visible in the mid-treble."

Steve Goff
Steve Goff is offline  
post #1627 of 5504 Old 02-13-2019, 06:46 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,589
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4192 Post(s)
Liked: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
I am not speaking for the authors of the room EQ paper, but my opinion is that using the L loudspeaker makes sense because it challenges the EQ systems to deal with both room modes (more strongly energized near corners) and adjacent boundary effects. These are the dominant real-world issues at low frequencies, and low frequencies account for about 30% of our opinions of sound quality.

I can speak with some knowledge about the speaker shuffler, as it was constructed on my watch. As explained in the caption of Figure 3.13 four single speakers, four stereo pairs and three multichannel L,C Rs could be positionally substituted, thereby rendering room modes and boundary effects constant factors, the idea being that it would give listeners increased ability to hear the genuine differences between the loudspeakers. A single speaker can be compared at L, C or R locations, at various distances from side and rear walls. In the early days we did several mono tests with speakers in different locations and found that listening off center was itself a distraction - the featured artist is always directly ahead. As I have said repeatedly, listeners have consistently been more critical of loudspeaker performance in mono tests. It allows the binaural system to perceptually better separate the sound source from the room.

In my early experiments (1982) I used several randomized room locations, Figure 3.12, and also a positional substitution scheme (1985), Figure 7.11, which was used in stereo and mono, as explained in great detail. Recordings were found to be the dominant factor in imaging and soundstage. In the tests the speakers and room symmetry were very carefully matched.

For the past 34 years I have awaited any comparably detailed tests of sound quality, imaging, soundstage and space worthy of publication in a peer reviewed journal. Tick, tock . . . Meanwhile there are countless opinions.
Thanks for your response.

"Meanwhile there are countless opinions."

Yep, including my worthless subjectivist audiophile, non-science opinion.

"the featured artist is always directly ahead."

That 'always' is dangerous.

"Recordings were found to be the dominant factor in imaging and soundstage"

It's not only dominant, it is THE factor. If it's not in the recording, it's not there to fabricate later.

My issue is for a pair of speakers to reproduce what's in the recording. Some speakers do a great job of it, some don't. It's almost the only thing I'm interested in (it's that 'catnip' thing Kevin was talking about 10,000 posts ago). Or let me put it this way, if it weren't for the three-dimensional aspects, I wouldn't be in the hobby so wouldn't be here to bother you guys with my subjectivist audiophile non-science POVs.
dowop likes this.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-14-2019 at 01:57 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1628 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:25 AM
Advanced Member
 
BP1Fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Columbus, Oh
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 279 Post(s)
Liked: 253
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
And here's this one

https://youtu.be/4G03l1eyU4s

"At first imaging was not that good but with care and time, image became “3 demensional” on certain recordings "

Yep, what I've been talking about, however, some speakers do it much better than others.

"Very very small adjustments affected how the speakers imaged in the room"

That even a half degree of rotation with regards to toe-in or an inch laterally can make big differences. Even more critical with one of the pairs I own due to that pesky back wave.
Scott, that video is the best post in this thread so far! I like that Gerry states he used to be an audiophile and a multiple channel system is the way to go over 2 channel system.

I struggle with my right front speaker. It sounds great in action scenes, but any other time, the left front speaker sounds louder no matter where I sit on the couch. I adjust the level of the right front speaker, but my mind keeps telling me to put the level back to the room correction level. Watching that video at 1:45am right now, explains a lot of things. I plan on playing around with the tilt angle some more, adjust the distance, and running room correction a few more times. One problem is the right front speaker is not against a wall or 2 like the left front and 2 surround speakers. Another problem is the right front speaker is mounted on a stand where the other 3 speakers are sitting on a ledge. Those problems are visual on my part. I want the fronts to be at the same width as the top middle and surrounds since I have 2 center channel speakers.

Anyways, thanks for posting that video! I need to go to bed.

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  
post #1629 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 01:51 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,589
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4192 Post(s)
Liked: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP1Fanatic View Post
Scott, that video is the best post in this thread so far! I like that Gerry states he used to be an audiophile and a multiple channel system is the way to go over 2 channel system.

I struggle with my right front speaker. It sounds great in action scenes, but any other time, the left front speaker sounds louder no matter where I sit on the couch. I adjust the level of the right front speaker, but my mind keeps telling me to put the level back to the room correction level. Watching that video at 1:45am right now, explains a lot of things. I plan on playing around with the tilt angle some more, adjust the distance, and running room correction a few more times. One problem is the right front speaker is not against a wall or 2 like the left front and 2 surround speakers. Another problem is the right front speaker is mounted on a stand where the other 3 speakers are sitting on a ledge. Those problems are visual on my part. I want the fronts to be at the same width as the top middle and surrounds since I have 2 center channel speakers.

Anyways, thanks for posting that video! I need to go to bed.
"multiple channel system is the way to go over 2 channel system."

Each to his own, but I disagree with that. One reason would be that it massively limits what I can listen to. The only thing remotely interesting might be Steve Wilson's remix/master of Jethro Tull and those are an improvement. I also love the King Crimson, In the Court of the Crimson King, but it's a really poor recording to begin with so it doesn't leave Wilson much to work with. I watch no movies so I have no need for 16.10.20 or whatever its up to these days.

If you have placement questions for the folks here, best thing to do is post room pics and a quickie drawing of dimensions.

Last edited by Scotth3886; 02-14-2019 at 07:38 AM.
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1630 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 03:25 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,690
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3099 Post(s)
Liked: 1853
They say that bass quality is a big factor in subjective speaker preference. When speakers are being compared, either with the shuffler or in other listening rooms at Harman, is there an option to use subwoofers and bass management in common with all tests? Not to test subs, but to eliminate the variable of bass performance for speakers that will in all likelihood be used with subwoofers at home.

It adds more complexity but it might focus the listener where it counts.
ggsantafe, genesplitter and drh3b like this.

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 offline  
post #1631 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 07:27 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,877
Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 353 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Chu Gai post from 2007....(Chu I hope you are well).

CHU’S POST

At http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...QPN=US5778087# one can obtain John Dunlavy's US Patent 5,778,087 which deals with a method for placing your loudspeakers. Basically one can use a monaural source fed through the speakers (interstation noise or something that you've burned on a CD) and the ubiquitous Radio Shack SPL. Even if you've worked on measuring things and striving for symmetry, you can still be off due to a myriad of factors.

You can save the full document to your hardrive for review or printing, but you may need to make some adjustments to your browser settings. Give it a look. It just might make things better for you.

Frankly, as a hardcore audiophile, your present positioning is just madness.

END OF CHU’S POST


Said was out but thought this is interesting. I think it was what Floyd was talking about.

Last edited by Randy Bessinger; 02-14-2019 at 09:09 AM.
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #1632 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 08:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
They say that bass quality is a big factor in subjective speaker preference. When speakers are being compared, either with the shuffler or in other listening rooms at Harman, is there an option to use subwoofers and bass management in common with all tests? Not to test subs, but to eliminate the variable of bass performance for speakers that will in all likelihood be used with subwoofers at home.

It adds more complexity but it might focus the listener where it counts.
I think that the many variables introduced by bass management/subwoofers would invalidate the entire process. Do you choose one standard setup and one particular subwoofer to mate with all the speakers (at most one match will be optimum) or do you try to optimize setup and sub choice for each and every speaker (mind-boggling number of confusing variables)?

The only rational choice would be to compare only speaker with the same target performance, e.g., stand mounted speakers of comparable size to each other or floor-standers of comparable size to each other. Within such comparisons, bass performance variability is relevant.

Kal Rubinson

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


Last edited by Kal Rubinson; 02-14-2019 at 08:50 AM.
Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #1633 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 09:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Scotth3886's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: New Albany, OH
Posts: 8,589
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4192 Post(s)
Liked: 2637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post
Chu Gai post from 2007....(Chu I hope you are well).

At http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...QPN=US5778087# one can obtain John Dunlavy's US Patent 5,778,087 which deals with a method for placing your loudspeakers. Basically one can use a monaural source fed through the speakers (interstation noise or something that you've burned on a CD) and the ubiquitous Radio Shack SPL. Even if you've worked on measuring things and striving for symmetry, you can still be off due to a myriad of factors.

You can save the full document to your hardrive for review or printing, but you may need to make some adjustments to your browser settings. Give it a look. It just might make things better for you.

Frankly, as a hardcore audiophile, your present positioning is just madness. end of Chu post on AVS 2007


Said was out but thought this is interesting. I think it was what Floyd was talking about.

I can't tell which part is a quote """""" and which part is you.

But yeah, using a mono source and starting one speaker at a time is closely akin to the Sumiko method as detailed 'poorly' In a previous post https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...l#post57598538
Scotth3886 is online now  
post #1634 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 09:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drh3b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 4,022
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2159 Post(s)
Liked: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
I think that the many variables introduced by bass management/subwoofers would invalidate the entire process. Do you choose one standard setup and one particular subwoofer to mate with all the speakers (at most one match will be optimum) or do you try to optimize setup and sub choice for each and every speaker (mind-boggling number of confusing variables)?

The only rational choice would be to compare only speaker with the same target performance, e.g., stand mounted speakers of comparable size to each other or floor-standers of comparable size to each other. Within such comparisons, bass performance variability is relevant.
I would assume you would just crossover all speakers at 80 Hz. It would probably be interesting to see speakers rated as full range, and crossed at 80 Hz, since so many people these days do have their speakers crossed at 80. Of course, I guess I'm kind of a weirdo as I use what would probably be considered a HT setup for almost exclusively music listening, 2 channel and multi channel.

My World Beating System!
Spoiler!
drh3b is offline  
post #1635 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:12 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Kal, I know you recently experienced the Harman speaker testing facility. I would be interested in your thoughts about monophonic listening and how the results extrapolate to stereo or multi-channel listening. In particular, do the monophonic listening tests reveal how well a pair of speakers or a multi-channel speaker system will project a sonic image or a phantom image?
In the test at Harman, I was presented with three speakers and I have also heard them in stereo but not at Harmon and not side-by-side. (https://www.stereophile.com/content/...-international)

1. The Salon 2 is simply too large for me to consider using in my listening room but auditions at shows have been very impressive.
2. The Performa F228Be was auditioned in my listening room and reported in my review. I though it superb and the ability of a pair to "project a sonic image or a phantom image" was highly convincing to the point that I am considering buying a handful! See: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...be-loudspeaker
3. The third was the Paradigm Persona 3F which was my least preferred in the Harman test although it OK. I think the difference between it and the Revels was accentuated by the rapid A/B comparison. I have not heard this speaker at any other time or place. I did review the Persona 5F in Stereophile (https://www.stereophile.com/content/...5f-loudspeaker) and rather liked it. It is the larger brother of the 3F but, I believe, they share the same midrange and treble drivers. You will find that I had to do a lot more fussing with toe-in and amp swapping to get satisfaction with the 5F than was necessary with the Performa in the same room. (I never had them at the same time.)

So, some might draw conclusions from my experience. I would sooner offer it as only anecdotal evidence but evidence that is consistent with Toole's statements.

Quote:
Note that the speaker used in the test is the LEFT speaker and it is placed on the left side of the room. It's not clear from the blog post or the PowerPoint what signal was sent to that one loudspeaker, (mono vs. the L channel of a 2-channel signal), but I just can't "grock" how this can be a valid test of a room correction system. At the very least, it seems like the speaker should be on-axis and directly in front of evaluator.
This is exactly how one should measure for room correction because assessing it anywhere else would be invalid for use in this position.
Quote:
This left side placement would have the HRTF superimposed on the response, which I would think would impair the sensitivity and/or specificity of the test.
AFAIK, a HRTF is unavoidable in any speaker listening but, as you imply, its transfer function differs with speaker placement. However, again, the HRTF for assessing room correction for a left front speaker would be relevant only if the speaker is actually situated at the left front.

Quote:
Can a monophonic listening test really tell us anything about the ability of more than one speaker to present a sonic image and soundstage? Also, can monophonic testing as used in the spinorama actually reveal anything about a speaker, that when used in a "system", can predict the system's ability to image and present a soundstage?
I do not know any scientific proof for it but Toole and Olive say there is correlative data for it and for speaker matching.

Kal Rubinson

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

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #1636 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:18 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by drh3b View Post
I would assume you would just crossover all speakers at 80 Hz. It would probably be interesting to see speakers rated as full range, and crossed at 80 Hz, since so many people these days do have their speakers crossed at 80.
Sure. There are lots of tests that many of us would like to see but Harman pays for doing these and, I think, chooses those that are of value to their commercial interests and are capable of scientific scrutiny.

Quote:
Of course, I guess I'm kind of a weirdo as I use what would probably be considered a HT setup for almost exclusively music listening, 2 channel and multi channel.
Me, too, except I don't even have the screen for HT.
steven59 and drh3b like this.

Kal Rubinson

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

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #1637 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
drh3b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Posts: 4,022
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2159 Post(s)
Liked: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
Sure. There are lots of tests that many of us would like to see but Harman pays for doing these and, I think, chooses those that are of value to their commercial interests and are capable of scientific scrutiny.

Me, too, except I don't even have the screen for HT.
The screen is part of the experience sometimes! At times I listen to music exclusively, and other times, I'm flitting about the internet on my flat screen, like now.
drh3b is offline  
post #1638 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:31 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,869
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 1657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
When you are talking about the L/R matching of speakers, that is something measurable. Of course, in the real world one does not have such measurements unless you do them yourself. Mismatched L & R loudspeakers are not uncommon. Revel Ultimas are measured and tweaked at the end of the production line - an added expense - to assist in the matter.
Some manufacturers do make matched pairs of loudspeakers... but it's usually just matched wood grains in the exterior veneers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Of course, the direct sound is most important. It has long been known that it is the prime determinant of sound image localizations. In normal small listening rooms off axis sounds, reflections, are unlikely to seriously degrade the precedence effect by generating spurious images (see Figures 7.26 and 7.30). Neither do they seem to affect the location of a phantom center image (Figure7.28).

As far as the "precision" of the phantom image is concerned the frequency response of the loudspeaker in delivering the direct sound matters less than the matching of the loudspeakers. This makes sense because phantom images can be any conceivable sound, modified in any conceivable way, so long as it is identically modified by the L & R speakers. This, I suspect is responsible for many of the experiences people have when finding the right aiming point and position (which includes adjacent boundary effects, another complication (Chapter 9). If all is well aiming the speaker's on-axis output at the listener should yield the best result, but judging that is a subjective event, so the circle of confusion is included . Not all recordings will be the same.
When you say "matching of the loudspeakers" are you referring to matching the time and frequency domains? IOW, if the arrival times from the L speaker are slightly different than the R speaker, this will be detrimental to the "Precedence Effect" and skew the imaging? Or, if the FR of the L speaker is different than the R speaker, these FR differences will skew the imaging? That seems intuitive, but just trying to understand.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
I happen to know a bit about this as localization was the topic of my PhD thesis, from which peer reviewed papers emerged:
Sayers, B. McA. and F.E. Toole (1964). “Acoustical Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 36, pp. 1199-1205.
Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965a). “Laterization Judgments and the nature of Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 319-324.
Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965b). “Inferences of Neural Activity Associated with Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 769-779.
Impressive, for sure!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Then there is the acoustic crosstalk explained in Figure7.2. When listening to a broadband, dense spectrum, especially like pink noise, one can easily find the sweet spot subjectively by listening for the 2 kHz dulling of the sound when in it. Of course, this is not a virtue, but a fundamental flaw of stereo. The more dominant the direct sound the clearer is the audibility of the spectral notch. This is the featured artist. Some room reflections somewhat alleviate this effect, Figure 7.2(e).
I don't have your current book. I have the previous edition. I'll have to review what you said about this in there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
Finally, anyone who thinks that eliminating all room reflections is a good idea has not listened in an anechoic chamber. That is another story.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean to suggest that the listening test be done in an anechoic chamber. I suggested *measuring* in an anechoic chamber. This was to remove the room effects from the results. However, I did suggest treating the room to reduce its' effect during the subjective tests.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
There is more to say, most of which is in the book. Bye for now . . .
Is the newest edition an update or a whole new book with new information?



Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
My System
craig john is offline  
post #1639 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:47 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by drh3b View Post
The screen is part of the experience sometimes! At times I listen to music exclusively, and other times, I'm flitting about the internet on my flat screen, like now.
Oh, I have screens including an iPad, 2 laptops and a 30" monitor for the Baetis/PC server. The big screen is in another room.

Kal Rubinson

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

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #1640 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 10:50 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd Toole View Post
When you are talking about the L/R matching of speakers, that is something measurable. Of course, in the real world one does not have such measurements unless you do them yourself. Mismatched L & R loudspeakers are not uncommon. Revel Ultimas are measured and tweaked at the end of the production line - an added expense - to assist in the matter.



Of course, the direct sound is most important. It has long been known that it is the prime determinant of sound image localizations. In normal small listening rooms off axis sounds, reflections, are unlikely to seriously degrade the precedence effect by generating spurious images (see Figures 7.26 and 7.30). Neither do they seem to affect the location of a phantom center image (Figure7.28).



As far as the "precision" of the phantom image is concerned the frequency response of the loudspeaker in delivering the direct sound matters less than the matching of the loudspeakers. This makes sense because phantom images can be any conceivable sound, modified in any conceivable way, so long as it is identically modified by the L & R speakers. This, I suspect is responsible for many of the experiences people have when finding the right aiming point and position (which includes adjacent boundary effects, another complication (Chapter 9). If all is well aiming the speaker's on-axis output at the listener should yield the best result, but judging that is a subjective event, so the circle of confusion is included . Not all recordings will be the same.



I happen to know a bit about this as localization was the topic of my PhD thesis, from which peer reviewed papers emerged:

Sayers, B. McA. and F.E. Toole (1964). “Acoustical Image Lateralization Judgments with Binaural Transients”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 36, pp. 1199-1205.

Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965a). “Laterization Judgments and the nature of Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 319-324.

Toole, F. E. and Sayers, B. McA. (1965b). “Inferences of Neural Activity Associated with Binaural Acoustic Images”, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., vol. 37, 769-779.



Then there is the acoustic crosstalk explained in Figure7.2. When listening to a broadband, dense spectrum, especially like pink noise, one can easily find the sweet spot subjectively by listening for the 2 kHz dulling of the sound when in it. Of course, this is not a virtue, but a fundamental flaw of stereo. The more dominant the direct sound the clearer is the audibility of the spectral notch. This is the featured artist. Some room reflections somewhat alleviate this effect, Figure 7.2(e).



Finally, anyone who thinks that eliminating all room reflections is a good idea has not listened in an anechoic chamber. That is another story.



There is more to say, most of which is in the book. Bye for now . . .
There is so much learning in this thread and in the book, that we should all get a Ph. D. for just reading them.

Thank you Dr. Toole

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
bearr48 likes this.
SouthernCA is offline  
post #1641 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 11:07 AM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,869
Mentioned: 69 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1385 Post(s)
Liked: 1657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
In the test at Harman, I was presented with three speakers and I have also heard them in stereo but not at Harmon and not side-by-side. (https://www.stereophile.com/content/...-international)

1. The Salon 2 is simply too large for me to consider using in my listening room but auditions at shows have been very impressive.
2. The Performa F228Be was auditioned in my listening room and reported in my review. I though it superb and the ability of a pair to "project a sonic image or a phantom image" was highly convincing to the point that I am considering buying a handful! See: https://www.stereophile.com/content/...be-loudspeaker
3. The third was the Paradigm Persona 3F which was my least preferred in the Harman test although it OK. I think the difference between it and the Revels was accentuated by the rapid A/B comparison. I have not heard this speaker at any other time or place. I did review the Persona 5F in Stereophile (https://www.stereophile.com/content/...5f-loudspeaker) and rather liked it. It is the larger brother of the 3F but, I believe, they share the same midrange and treble drivers. You will find that I had to do a lot more fussing with toe-in and amp swapping to get satisfaction with the 5F than was necessary with the Performa in the same room. (I never had them at the same time.)

So, some might draw conclusions from my experience. I would sooner offer it as only anecdotal evidence but evidence that is consistent with Toole's statements.
Some anecdotes are better than others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
This is exactly how one should measure for room correction because assessing it anywhere else would be invalid for use in this position.
AFAIK, a HRTF is unavoidable in any speaker listening but, as you imply, its transfer function differs with speaker placement. However, again, the HRTF for assessing room correction for a left front speaker would be relevant only if the speaker is actually situated at the left front.
Yes, of course. However, why would one want the HRTF involved in the listening test at all? Everyone's head is different. Everyone's ears are a different distance apart. Everyone's pinnae are different. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate this variable from the listening test and place the speaker directly in front of the listener?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
I do not know any scientific proof for it but Toole and Olive say there is correlative data for it and for speaker matching.
See my speaker matching questions to Dr. Toole above.


Craig

Lombardi said it:
"Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
My System
craig john is offline  
post #1642 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 11:17 AM
Senior Member
 
genesplitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 227
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Dressler View Post
They say that bass quality is a big factor in subjective speaker preference. When speakers are being compared, either with the shuffler or in other listening rooms at Harman, is there an option to use subwoofers and bass management in common with all tests? Not to test subs, but to eliminate the variable of bass performance for speakers that will in all likelihood be used with subwoofers at home.

It adds more complexity but it might focus the listener where it counts.
Floyd Toole / Sean Olive / Kevin Voecks all make a convincing case that even a cost-no-object system that optimizes sound quality will be bass-managed to multiple subs + Harman SFM (or equivalent, like MSO). I agree with Roger because I'd like to know just how close an inexpensive speaker can match the sound quality of a Revel Salon 2 when bass-managed. I feel that the additional costs to design the Salon 2 to handle the lowest frequencies is somewhat wasted if you follow Harman's best practices.


https://www.audioholics.com/room-aco...eld-management
Roger Dressler likes this.

U-Turn Orbit Plus turntable, Marantz SR-7009 AVR, iNuke 6000DSP, DIY LinkwitzLab speakers, MartyCube + JohnnySub, BenQ W1070, Roku stick, Plex

Last edited by genesplitter; 02-14-2019 at 11:49 AM.
genesplitter is offline  
post #1643 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 11:42 AM
Member
 
neutralguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 79 Post(s)
Liked: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post
1. The Salon 2 is simply too large for me to consider using in my listening room but auditions at shows have been very impressive.
Unless your concern is visual aesthetics, I'm not aware of a sound argument for smaller rooms requiring smaller speakers, as long as there's enough distance for driver blending (i.e. not desktop). I have tried the Salon2 in two small rooms about 10' wide and a rather large room about 16' wide and quite deep. While the soundstage was different among rooms, in all cases the Salon2 has shined. Bass was different among them (< 300hz or so) but equalization is necessary in that region anyway regardless of speaker.

Last edited by neutralguy; 02-14-2019 at 11:46 AM.
neutralguy is offline  
post #1644 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:07 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 28,378
Mentioned: 231 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7482 Post(s)
Liked: 6610
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
However, why would one want the HRTF involved in the listening test at all?
As Kal said, HRTF is unavoidable in any speaker listening (your head is a factor any time your listen to anything).
Quote:
Everyone's head is different. Everyone's ears are a different distance apart. Everyone's pinnae are different.
All that would still be the case if the speaker was in a different location.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to eliminate this variable from the listening test and place the speaker directly in front of the listener?
It's not a variable: speaker location remained constant throughout the entire listening test.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #1645 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:12 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Roger Dressler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,690
Mentioned: 96 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3099 Post(s)
Liked: 1853
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
However, why would one want the HRTF involved in the listening test at all? Everyone's head is different. Everyone's ears are a different distance apart. Everyone's pinnae are different. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate this variable from the listening test and place the speaker directly in front of the listener?
HRTFs exist no matter what the angle of incidence to the listener's head. The only way to eliminate HRTFs from an assessment is to look at measured signals rather than surveying humans. But then it's not a listening test anymore.
sdurani likes this.

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"

Last edited by Roger Dressler; 02-14-2019 at 12:39 PM.
Roger Dressler is offline  
post #1646 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:14 PM
Member
 
Floyd Toole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: California
Posts: 841
Mentioned: 91 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 884 Post(s)
Liked: 3127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
Thanks for your response.


"Recordings were found to be the dominant factor in imaging and soundstage"

It's not only dominant, it is THE factor. If it's not in the recording, it's not there to fabricate later.

My issue is for a pair of speakers to reproduce what's in the recording. Some speakers do a great job of it, some don't.
Interesting twist: you said "fabricate" and "reproduce". Fabrications - embellishments - are what a lot of people look for in speakers and upmixing. Often it amounts to adding room reflections, but it can also be the opposite, all in an effort to extract something more rewarding from perceptually hobbled stereo.

Reproduction has been my purpose in life, primarily in the context of sound quality, where daily life gives us exposure to uncorrupted sound. Listeners appear to hear problems more easily than they can recognize virtues. But, in terms of imaging and soundstage there are no references. We have absolutely no idea of what the artists and recording engineer created - it can be almost anything in studio creations. Even symphonic concert hall recordings, which have a chance of having a reference in real life, are in my listening to countless versions of the same movements on Tidal, hugely variable. Some are what I describe as "stretched mono" a small pool of sound in the middle, while those at the other extreme clearly attempt to put me in the hall with the musicians. This all with the same speakers in the same room.

What I was saying was that when put to the test, the variations in recordings outweighed the variations in the loudspeakers in the test, which were considerable: two very different forward firing speakers and a Quad ESL 63.

So when you like what a pair of speakers does to a recording, you attribute virtue to the loudspeaker, when it is the combination at work. The judgement is your opinion, formed using your ears and brain - your perceptual system - which at age 75 (I think you said) is certainly not at its peak performance. I am in the same situation, so this is not a personal slight. We hear what we hear, and it almost certainly is different from those with more normal hearing. Chapter 17 has a discussion of a binaural hearing deficiency called "hidden hearing loss" which must affect our ability to separate sounds in space, very likely causing us to prefer sound fields that are less reflective. It appears in young and old, including those with measurable normal hearing thresholds. This is also discussed in the context of recording engineers, for whom hearing loss of all kinds is an occupational hazard.

You seem to have found something you really like. Good. Enjoy it. It does not mean that those who prefer something else are wrong.
RichB, rynberg, krabapple and 4 others like this.
Floyd Toole is offline  
post #1647 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:14 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Yes, of course. However, why would one want the HRTF involved in the listening test at all? Everyone's head is different. Everyone's ears are a different distance apart. Everyone's pinnae are different. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate this variable from the listening test and place the speaker directly in front of the listener?
You cannot remove the HRTF from any listening test. To be glib, my ears don't come off and I cannot bypass them.

Kal Rubinson

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

Kal Rubinson is offline  
post #1648 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Dave in Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 8,649
Mentioned: 156 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3953 Post(s)
Liked: 3128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotth3886 View Post
"Meanwhile there are countless opinions."

Yep, including my worthless subjectivist audiophile, non-science opinion. …
We all have our own opinions, and while they may be worthless to others they do work for us. There's nothing wrong with this. We're all looking for personal satisfaction, and we are generally the best judges of what works best for ourselves. Still, it pays to always have an open mind to new data. The more options we're exposed to the more likely we are to find something new that works even better for us than what we previously accepted as optimum. It's a bonus when the new data includes results from the best currently available scientific research.

I first became interested in high fidelity music reproduction as a kid more than 60 years ago and have enjoyed a variety of modest equipment over the decades. My opinions have continuously evolved over that time and this thread has accelerated the process, causing me to re-think my setup yet again. Since this thread started I've relocated my subwoofer and readjusted my mains to better fit what the best available scientific research shows. To my ears the sound has never been better and I'm playing different music non-stop, sometimes to my wife's annoyance.

The technical explanations from Dr. Toole and other knowledgeable professionals contributing to this thread have greatly increased my understanding of how to improve the level of personal satisfaction I'm getting from my current system and is influencing what I will consider for future upgrades. But I also appreciate reading and considering the unscientific opinions of what others think works best for them. For me all aspects of the conversation are entertaining, enjoyable and educational, and I need my daily fix. This is so much better than the bad old days of having to wait a month between issues of the monthly hi-fi magazines.
Dave in Green is offline  
post #1649 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 983 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post
Some manufacturers do make matched pairs of loudspeakers... but it's usually just matched wood grains in the exterior veneers.



When you say "matching of the loudspeakers" are you referring to matching the time and frequency domains? IOW, if the arrival times from the L speaker are slightly different than the R speaker, this will be detrimental to the "Precedence Effect" and skew the imaging? Or, if the FR of the L speaker is different than the R speaker, these FR differences will skew the imaging? That seems intuitive, but just trying to understand.



Impressive, for sure!



I don't have your current book. I have the previous edition. I'll have to review what you said about this in there.



Maybe I wasn't clear, but I didn't mean to suggest that the listening test be done in an anechoic chamber. I suggested *measuring* in an anechoic chamber. This was to remove the room effects from the results. However, I did suggest treating the room to reduce its' effect during the subjective tests.



Is the newest edition an update or a whole new book with new information?



Craig
3rd edition looks to me as a new book with a lot of additional content.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
SouthernCA is offline  
post #1650 of 5504 Old 02-14-2019, 12:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Kal Rubinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC + Connecticut
Posts: 30,373
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1399 Post(s)
Liked: 1354
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutralguy View Post
Unless your concern is visual aesthetics, I'm not aware of a sound argument for smaller rooms requiring smaller speakers, as long as there's enough distance for driver blending (i.e. not desktop). I have tried the Salon2 in two small rooms about 10' wide and a rather large room about 16' wide and quite deep. While the soundstage was different among rooms, in all cases the Salon2 has shined. Bass was different among them (< 300hz or so) but equalization is necessary in that region anyway regardless of speaker.
Aesthetics is the main reason plus I would need to have 3 or 5 of them. My room is about 15' wide and 26' long and completely open to the rear.

Kal Rubinson

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

Kal Rubinson 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