Sorry for the delayed response. First, now that you have the book you have an opportunity to find out for yourself why some factors were included and others excluded from the Olive experiments. Not everything matters, even if it is measurable. Second, once you have digested the background to the experiments I think you need to discuss the details with Olive himself - he dips into this thread from time to time.

There is much more detail about the experiments in the original Olive papers than in the brief summary in my book:
Olive, S.E. (2004a). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 1 – listening test results”, 116th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6113.
Olive, S.E. (2004b). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 2 – development of the model”, 117th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6190.
There is also a patent.

... Rockville makes a speaker similar to the 708i, but it has a built in amplifier. I wished they made a passive version of the RPG8.

The curves shown in figure 26 look like the first gen Revel Salon.

Did some digging and with 99% certainty the figure 26 should be the first gen Revel Studio (almost the same thing, but as there is so much discussion around just this spinorama, here is a clarification).

Lol...

"Figure 30: Words fail me.... This was sold to unknowing consumers, and, as far as I know, no one went to jail."

I'd like to know what speaker is Brand B though!

I have just seen this presentation for the first time, and I have not checked with Manny LaCarrubba, but the Spinorama on speaker B looks a lot like the JBL Pro M2, which is on the cover of my new book (also elsewhere in the book, Figure 5.12, and on the JBL Pro website).

Manny is one of the straight shooters in the business. We met when he and his business partner of the time, David Moulton, came to use the NRCC facilities to evaluate an early prototype of their wide dispersion "acoustic lens" high frequency radiator. It wasn't perfect, but showed promise. Eventually it was good enough that B&O used it in their "robot" loudspeaker and in cars (which now are done by Harman). Although Harman has not used the wide dispersion driver design in consumer speakers, there is nothing wrong with it that I know of. In fact an original prototype system brought to Harman was arguably better than the original commercial B&O design.

It's a small world. This is a very good description of what spinorama curves mean. I must thank Manny.

Those who think that spinorama data presentations discriminate against small manufacturers, take note.

Agreed! But, I don't need to be in the best league.

It's actually the JBL 708P

Have a look at this document on the 708P, also from Sausalito Audio:

https://www.sausalitoaudio.com/wp-co...08P-Charts.pdf

You can see that the plots are the same as the Brand B plots.

It's actually the JBL 708P

Have a look at this document on the 708P, also from Sausalito Audio:

https://www.sausalitoaudio.com/wp-co...08P-Charts.pdf

You can see that the plots are the same as the Brand B plots.

Were all the speakers in the test self powered and have dsp? If not, then here we go with the apples to oranges comparison.

Sorry for the delayed response. First, now that you have the book you have an opportunity to find out for yourself why some factors were included and others excluded from the Olive experiments. Not everything matters, even if it is measurable. Second, once you have digested the background to the experiments I think you need to discuss the details with Olive himself - he dips into this thread from time to time.

There is much more detail about the experiments in the original Olive papers than in the brief summary in my book:
Olive, S.E. (2004a). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 1 – listening test results”, 116th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6113.
Olive, S.E. (2004b). “A multiple regression model for predicting loudspeaker preference using objective measurements: part 2 – development of the model”, 117th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc., Preprint 6190.
There is also a patent.

Considering paradigm and revel follow the same science I find it interesting they're research is providing such different results, at least on the spin comparing the 3 $10k speakers. maybe i'm connecting dots that I shouldn't be?

Considering paradigm and revel follow the same science I find it interesting they're research is providing such different results, at least on the spin comparing the 3 $10k speakers. maybe i'm connecting dots that I shouldn't be?

Considering paradigm and revel follow the same science I find it interesting they're research is providing such different results, at least on the spin comparing the 3 $10k speakers. maybe i'm connecting dots that I shouldn't be?

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. A folksy saying that is true in audio.

Paradigm was one of the first Canadian companies to avail themselves of the facilities and my research findings at the NRCC. That was many years ago. Initially they worked hard to follow the guidance. Figure 18.4(e) shows their model 7se which was a high scoring speaker in its day.

They now have their own anechoic chamber and have gone their own way with respect to "voicing". A bass rise was one of the early "innovations", perhaps building in a bit of "loudness" bass boost for lower level listening. I don't know. I think they still advertise their connection to the NRCC research, but as the recent spinoramas are telling us, they are not following it as rigorously as they could. Maybe they know better. Business is business.

I always thought the measurements of some of the Energy speaker models from the early 2000's looked very impressive, but where is the company now?
With so many things, marketing sells.

I might as well ask while it's on my mind:

There's something about the Bowers & Wilkins 700 series that really bothers my ears. Something to do with the treble sounding harsh. Is that just distortion, or is it a strange, intentional design choice?

I have no excuse for this one, but I bought a pair of 685 S2s about three years ago. I bet they have less that five hours on them. I couldn't stand them. 'House sound' I guess.

Considering paradigm and revel follow the same science I find it interesting they're research is providing such different results, at least on the spin comparing the 3 $10k speakers. maybe i'm connecting dots that I shouldn't be?

I listened to those for about an hour a few years ago, and while I did find the treble a bit unclear/messy, almost staticky even, I didn't find them physically painful to listen to like the 700 series.

I have seen spinoramas on numerous B&W models over many years. When John Bowers was alive he used NRCC measurements and our blind listening evaluations in his deliberations. There was an attempt to present a consistent timbral impression across models. We became friends and he gave me a pair of the "pregnant robots" The DM-6, which graced my living room for a while. They were a serious attempt to be neutral.

In his absence things have clearly changed. In recent years the evidence I have seen indicates that if there is a "house sound" I cannot identify it. Neutral is not it, even in the top models in the lineup - see Figure 12.3 shows the 802N from a few years ago. The more current 803 D3 is different, still not neutral, having a significant treble emphasis and a similar DI issue. A 6-inch-midrange to- 1-inch tweeter transition without a waveguide on the tweeter leads inevitably to a DI discontinuity. I suspect that the marketing dept. has something to do with the continued use of this stylistic idiom. One cannot argue with sales, though . . . or can one

One cannot argue with sales, though . . . or can one

That sounds like a slightly sad story. But in my mind, I like to think I can help combat marketing by simply not buying. That said, I noticed there is a bit of disapproval for Paradigm, and now I'm thinking about my decision to go with Prestige 15B's instead of something from Revel. To my untrained ears, they sounded very similar to the Revel M105 and M106, but I didn't like the price of the C208.

I probably spent about a thousand or more less than if I went with Revel on my L/C/R, and all of those savings are going to a second subwoofer. And since my system is mainly for home theater, I know what I did isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm still young, and these won't be the last speakers I ever use, but I still think about my decision once in a while.

Considering paradigm and revel follow the same science I find it interesting they're research is providing such different results, at least on the spin comparing the 3 $10k speakers. maybe i'm connecting dots that I shouldn't be?

This is my theory. The old series (Signature) was much more like Revel. But with their new generation (Persona) they decided on trying to copy the B&W sound signature to court older (more wealthy buyers):

Paradigm Signature (S1)



Paradigm Persona (B)



Bowers & Wilkens (705)

Haha, but wasn't all the rage back in the 80s the Smiley Face Curve with boosted highs and bass? I'm saying it's hearkening back to the good old days