Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker? (Read 43014 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #25 –
On a related note:
If you compared the frequency response from your loudspeaker in a dead room in contrast to the frequency response when measured in your living room, I think you will find that you should start modifying your room before you spend a fortune on new speakers

Thorbjorn

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #26 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Because a some people here seem to be such fans of Sean Olive I googled him. In his last article about speaker quality metrics he's confirming what I conjectured in my upper post about distortion and a lack of usable metrics, regarding their relationship to a speaker's sound. So the observed phenomenon seems perfectly plausible without the need of a frequency response fraud conspiracy theory about a manufacturer you probably don't even know.

Quote
3. The relationship between perception and measurement of nonlinear distortions is less well understood and needs further research. Popular specifications like Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and Intermodulation Distortion (IM) do not accurately reflect the distortion’s audibility and effect on the perceived sound quality of the loudspeaker.





 

This is the second time ina week I've seen someone quote *ONLY* point number three from Sean's blog, while either downplaying or ignoring the points that were #1 and #2:


Quote
#1 The perception of loudspeaker sound quality is dominated by linear distortions, which can be accurately quantified and predicted using a set of comprehensive anechoic frequency response measurements (see my previous posting here)

#2 Both trained and untrained listeners tend to prefer the most accurate loudspeakers when measured under controlled double-blind listening conditions (see this article here).



These points are *at least*, if not more, important than #3, fo someone seeking to buy loudspeakers on a rational basis .  They indicate that we CAN make predictions about loudspeaker sound quality, from the right measurements (whihc, unfortunately, aren't always available).  Point #3 adds that we don't have every correlated metric for every form of distortion worked out...yet.
In your post 'up there' you gave only the barest technical details; we don't knwo how the measurements were taken; we don't even know what the models were.  The speakers were almost certainly not heard at the same position  (even small changes in speaker position will change apparent treble performance); and of course the comparison wasn't blind.  It's hard to say *anything* concrete about your anecdote, and implying that something mysterious and as yet unmeasureable was the reason for what you heard, is really jumping the gun..

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: 2tec on
If the only audible difference left between different digital systems is with the speakers,


Btw,  the 'no audible difference' proviso applies when the 'digital system' output devices being compared are level matched (preferably to within 0.2dB) on all channels.  This is by no means guaranteed to be the case 'out of box'.

No one should say 'all digital systems sound the same', without qualification.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: krabapple on
This is the second time ina week I've seen someone quote *ONLY* point number three from Sean's blog, while either downplaying or ignoring the points that were #1 and #2:


Point #1 and #2 are just not news in any way. Condition one for a good speaker is a flat frequency response from x to at least 20000, with x as small as you can afford. That will already take you a very long way. But as said, that's obvious. The interesting point for debate is #3, because we are lacking appropriate metrics, yet.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: krabapple on
This is the second time ina week I've seen someone quote *ONLY* point number three from Sean's blog, while either downplaying or ignoring the points that were #1 and #2:


Point #1 and #2 are just not news in any way. Condition one for a good speaker is a flat frequency response from x to at least 20000, with x as small as you can afford. That will already take you a very long way. But as said, that's obvious. The interesting point for debate is #3, because we are lacking appropriate metrics, yet.


That other guy that krabby is referring to is me, from a post I made over on the AVS forum.    Funny that I would end up finding this thread too.  I spend too much time on the interweb me thinks.

I too find point #3 the most interesting because I've been studying FR graphs for years, and have had plenty of speakers in my home with respectably flat FR, yet I would hear qualities to the sound of speakers that did not line up with their FR.  Furthermore, I recently traded speakers with +/- 1dB FR from 50hz to 20KHz (Revel Studio2) for speakers with +/- 3dB FR (Wilson Benesch) because the later sounded more natural to me (and besides I can change the speaker's FR easily with DSP based EQ, but have no control over the distortion).

But the answer to the OPs question is simple.  If you believe Olive and Toole's findings, that humans prefer speakers that are more accurate (flat on and off-axis FR, low distortion, etc), then you will naturally pick the more accurate speaker in a blind test simply by listening to them.  No need to refer to graphs and measurements, because current testing shows that we will sort these things out with listening.  OK, so you could narrow down the candidates by referring to the FR and dispersion graphs, but I wouldn't be too anal about it.  +/- 3dB FR, given it is relatively smooth in its transitions should put the speaker in the running.  Best to do the auditioning at home though, as the room, the listening position and speaker position can affect the outcome, as I'm sure you all know.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: krabapple on
This is the second time ina week I've seen someone quote *ONLY* point number three from Sean's blog, while either downplaying or ignoring the points that were #1 and #2:


Point #1 and #2 are just not news in any way. Condition one for a good speaker is a flat frequency response from x to at least 20000, with x as small as you can afford.



What's 'news' depends on how clued in you are, doesn't it?  Point #3 was not news to me....nor to anyone who followed the research that yielded #1 and #2 ...and most audio hobbyists would not be surprised to know that loudspeakers measurements aren't fully comprehensive predictors of sound yet.

(Flat FR on and off axis matters...the latter is still news to some people.  And FR measurments aren't the only measurements that are currently taken, that matter.  Cabinet resonance,
for example)

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: AV-OCD on
But the answer to the OPs question is simple.  If you believe Olive and Toole's findings, that humans prefer speakers that are more accurate (flat on and off-axis FR, low distortion, etc), then you will naturally pick the more accurate speaker in a blind test simply by listening to them.  No need to refer to graphs and measurements, because current testing shows that we will sort these things out with listening.  OK, so you could narrow down the candidates by referring to the FR and dispersion graphs, but I wouldn't be too anal about it.  +/- 3dB FR, given it is relatively smooth in its transitions should put the speaker in the running.  Best to do the auditioning at home though, as the room, the listening position and speaker position can affect the outcome, as I'm sure you all know.


Because few can do blind tests at home, for most there is certainly a need to refer to graphs and measurements , if they aim to own a loudspeaker that conforms to the Toole/Olive metrics for 'likely to sound good'

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #32 –
(dupe, delete)

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #33 –
(anotehr dupe, please delete)

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #34 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Because few can do blind tests at home, for most there is certainly a need to refer to graphs and measurements , if they aim to own a loudspeaker that conforms to the Toole/Olive metrics for 'likely to sound good'



Here's something interesting.  Not entirely conclusive, but it relevant to the topic of discussion.

Audioholics recently did a blind test "shoot out" between 4 speakers in the $1500-$2000 range, one of which was the new Infinity Classia C336.  As Infinity is a brand under the Harman umbrella, the Classia was likely designed with flat frequency response as a goal, and they were probably subjected to internal blind testing.

Based on the FR graph provided by HT mag, it looks like Infinity hit the goal of flat FR.  Well at least within a 30 degree window (HT Mag does not publish off-axis measurements unfortunately).



Despite the flat FR of the Classia, it was rated the least desirable in terms of sound quality.  The group chose a Dali speaker consistently over the Infinity, and I have never seen a Dali speaker that has response anywhere near as flat is the Infinity.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speaker...t-results-blind

If you were to narrow down your choices using the FR plots with the speakers in this test, the Infinity's would make the short list, and the Dali's probably wouldn't. 

Just food for thought.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #35 –
A manufacturer that is striving for flat frequency response and perfect unit pulse response is Nubert www.nubert.de
Their philosophy is that a speaker cannot know, how to alter the sound as it cannot distinguish between a silent part in song at high volume or a loud part played at low volume. So the best one can do is just to reproduce faithfully what the source contains.
They also have lots of technical material to read on their page - unfortunately only in German.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: AV-OCD on
Here's something interesting.  Not entirely conclusive, but it relevant to the topic of discussion.

Audioholics recently did a blind test "shoot out" between 4 speakers in the $1500-$2000 range,...


hum...
Quote from: audioholics.com link=msg=0 date=
There were two yes/no questions - Do you like this speaker? and Would you want to own this speaker? As you might imagine, the responses to both these questions lined up pretty closely. The thought was that you could like a speaker in a comparison but not want to own either of them. It would be very unusual to want to own a speaker that you didn't like. Results of those questions in the table below:

...
Each speaker was heard three times by each listener. The number is the absolute number of times the listener either liked or would buy the speaker. The maximum would be nine (all three saying yes in all three comparisons)
Sorry but that's really poor methodology, and is an entirely too small of a sample size to mean anything conclusively. Why wouldn't they try a standard ABC/HR test if they were going to waste their time?
elevatorladylevitateme

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #37 –
I second the opinion about Nubert. It's an excellent manufacturer. They claim though, that their crossovers are of maximum fidelity while maintaining phase accuracy (through 'phase correction filters') which is theoretically impossible.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Sorry but that's really poor methodology, and is an entirely too small of a sample size to mean anything conclusively. Why wouldn't they try a standard ABC/HR test if they were going to waste their time?


I really don't think that something that rigorous is needed to blind test speakers.  The differences are often quite obvious, as compared to testing something like a CD player or a preamp.  Then something like the ABC test would be warranted.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #39 –
@rpp3po: I think what you mean is only employed in the new Nubert nuVero series. And the filter math was shown in their forum. You may check the math whether it is impossible or not: http://www.nubert-forum.de/nuforum/viewtop...ro&start=10

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #40 –
Quote from: AV-OCD on
Despite the flat FR of the Classia, it was rated the least desirable in terms of sound quality.  The group chose a Dali speaker consistently over the Infinity, and I have never seen a Dali speaker that has response anywhere near as flat is the Infinity.


I'm a fan of what Sean Olive and researchers like him are doing, but I do wonder about something.  A basic adage (and I believe there has been research in psychology to support this) is that people tend to prefer what they are used to.  From my experience, this holds true for choices ranging from underwear type to the unconscious choices made when picking friends and romantic partners.

So, if a group of listeners have spent many years listening to speakers that are do NOT have flat FR, wouldn't they pick a similar sounding speaker as better sounding than a flat speaker in a blind test?  Isn't it just a matter of liking what they are used to?

Honestly, I support most results of blind testing in audio, but it's very difficult for me to accept that Olive's results are representative of the larger population and not just his sample.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #41 –
Good point.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #42 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: AV-OCD on
Despite the flat FR of the Classia, it was rated the least desirable in terms of sound quality.  The group chose a Dali speaker consistently over the Infinity, and I have never seen a Dali speaker that has response anywhere near as flat is the Infinity.


I'm a fan of what Sean Olive and researchers like him are doing, but I do wonder about something.  A basic adage (and I believe there has been research in psychology to support this) is that people tend to prefer what they are used to.  From my experience, this holds true for choices ranging from underwear type to the unconscious choices made when picking friends and romantic partners.

So, if a group of listeners have spent many years listening to speakers that are do NOT have flat FR, wouldn't they pick a similar sounding speaker as better sounding than a flat speaker in a blind test?  Isn't it just a matter of liking what they are used to?

Honestly, I support most results of blind testing in audio, but it's very difficult for me to accept that Olive's results are representative of the larger population and not just his sample.



Did you read the papers to see what his sample consisted of?  You might be surprised.

In addition to listeners from various occupations -- including audio 'professionals' -- Olive also compared listeners who he trained to hear typical forms of distortion, to those he did not.  The former more strongly showed a preference for well-measuring speakers , than the latter -- but the trend was there in both groups.

These are trends, not perfect predictors of individual choice.  Floyd Toole discusses some interesting departures from the main trend, in his book.

You could also write to Sean on his blog -- or his account here at HA, or on avsforum -- and ask him about variance due to previous experience. That would be an interesting discussion too

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #43 –
Quote from: AV-OCD on
If you were to narrow down your choices using the FR plots with the speakers in this test, the Infinity's would make the short list, and the Dali's probably wouldn't. 

Just food for thought.



First, it's results from just three listeners, whereas Olive tested hundredsn, and Audioholics, though they deserve all credit for trying, doesn't have the terrific 'double-blind speaker lazy susan' technology that Harman has, to reduce the interval between presentations and variation in speaker position.  The room is also acoustically well-designed and treated.  The Audioholics loudspeakers weren't auditioned from the same speaker placement, and the room by the reviewers' own account had some issues.

Second, given that two of the three subjects were audio reviewers, these results may well fall into Toole's secondary category of listeners who do NOT tend to prefer the sound of loudspeakers that meet the derived Toole/Olive criteria.
Those in this category tended to be audio engineers and others who make their living listening to audio in somewhat different ways than the typical listener.  Instead of wide 'apparent source width' (ASW) and 'listener envelopment',
two key criteria for typical listeners, they tend to focus on things like pinpoint imaging.

Third, the subjects even seem to have discussed or viewed each other's answers during the test.  That's a no-no.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #44 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Did you read the papers to see what his sample consisted of?  You might be surprised.

In addition to listeners from various occupations -- including audio 'professionals' -- Olive also compared listeners who he trained to hear typical forms of distortion, to those he did not.  The former more strongly showed a preference for well-measuring speakers , than the latter -- but the trend was there in both groups.

These are trends, not perfect predictors of individual choice.  Floyd Toole discusses some interesting departures from the main trend, in his book.


I did go through one paper and it was precisely the variety of the listeners in his sample and the results that surprised me.

Honestly, It's not that I don't believe him, I just find it hard to digest.  A lot of people (me included) were raised on systems with V shaped FRs.  I remember when standalone"Graphic Equalizers" with fancy LCD displays were common with every home system and many people would immediately hit the button that boosted the bass and treble to "improve" the sound.  Consequently, I tend to like headphones/speakers with a little bump in the bass/midbass.

If you were brought up listening to smaller portable boxes with one physical driver per channel, you probably got used to sound that is almost an inverse V.  Wouldn't people raised that way prefer a speaker with a more humped up midrange?

I'm just speculating here.  There's probably another theory that explains Olive's results and crushes my objections.  I'm not the one doing research.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #45 –
Quote from: odigg on
Quote from: krabapple on
Did you read the papers to see what his sample consisted of?  You might be surprised.

Honestly, It's not that I don't believe him, I just find it hard to digest.  A lot of people (me included) were raised on systems with V shaped FRs.  I remember when standalone"Graphic Equalizers" with fancy LCD displays were common with every home system and many people would immediately hit the button that boosted the bass and treble to "improve" the sound.  Consequently, I tend to like headphones/speakers with a little bump in the bass/midbass.



What you probably don't know is the frequency response of the systems you are listening to *before* you crank in the bass boost.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #46 –
af anyone wants to read an, um, interesting juxtaposition of subjective impression versus measurements of loudspeakers, check out this review:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/zudruid.htm

and then check out these measurements

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem.../zucable_druid/

Btw, it's a loudspeaker by a company that also sells 'audiophile' cables.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #47 –
Quote from: AV-OCD on
Quote from: krabapple on
Because few can do blind tests at home, for most there is certainly a need to refer to graphs and measurements , if they aim to own a loudspeaker that conforms to the Toole/Olive metrics for 'likely to sound good'



Here's something interesting.  Not entirely conclusive, but it relevant to the topic of discussion.

Audioholics recently did a blind test "shoot out" between 4 speakers in the $1500-$2000 range, one of which was the new Infinity Classia C336.  As Infinity is a brand under the Harman umbrella, the Classia was likely designed with flat frequency response as a goal, and they were probably subjected to internal blind testing.

Based on the FR graph provided by HT mag, it looks like Infinity hit the goal of flat FR.  Well at least within a 30 degree window (HT Mag does not publish off-axis measurements unfortunately).



Despite the flat FR of the Classia, it was rated the least desirable in terms of sound quality.  The group chose a Dali speaker consistently over the Infinity, and I have never seen a Dali speaker that has response anywhere near as flat is the Infinity.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speaker...t-results-blind

If you were to narrow down your choices using the FR plots with the speakers in this test, the Infinity's would make the short list, and the Dali's probably wouldn't. 

Just food for thought.

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #48 –
Quote from: krabapple on
af anyone wants to read an, um, interesting juxtaposition of subjective impression versus measurements of loudspeakers, check out this review:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue11/zudruid.htm

and then check out these measurements

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurem.../zucable_druid/

Btw, it's a loudspeaker by a company that also sells 'audiophile' cables.


KrabApple - This is probably one of the worst set of  loudspeaker frequency response curves I've seen in quite awhile. When measurements look that bad, yet the listening review is positive, it's a sign that something is faulty with the listening device(s) and/or listening test methodology.  It's a case of "Hearing is Believing" versus "Believing is Hearing." It wouldn't be the first time I've seen this.

The best example is a high-end $11k electrostatic speaker that was awarded "Speaker of the Year" in a well-known audio magazine, and yet it measured horribly.  When I invited 6 professional audio reviewers (including some from the same magazine)  to evaluate it under controlled, double-blind conditions they rated it dead last -- just like the other 300 listeners  (see speaker M here . The other speaker P that they rated in first place, was also deemed "speaker of the year" in the same magazine the following year. How can reviewers be so grossly inconsistent from year to year? It's because they don't do comprehensive measurements like SoundStage or now Consumer Report, but instead rely on poorly controlled, sighted, biased, casual listening. KrabApple's example is another good illustration of what can happen.

Cheers
Sean
http://seanolive.blogspot.com

Objectively speaking, what's the best speaker?

Reply #49 –
Quote from: hybris on
On a related note:
If you compared the frequency response from your loudspeaker in a dead room in contrast to the frequency response when measured in your living room, I think you will find that you should start modifying your room before you spend a fortune on new speakers


True for steady state. 

Remember that the perception of the frequency response of a loudspeaker/room system has a complex interaction between the sound directly from the speaker to the listener followed by the arrival of the reverberation from the room/speaker interaction.  So if the direct sound is perfectly flat, the time-delayed arrivals at the listener after the indirect sound bounces around the room and decays certainly won't be flat, so how the brain integrates these disparate signals is far more complex than a simple anechoic steady state frequency response could predict.

Another item that can have a significant impact is amplitude linearity.  Most speakers tend to compress the amplitude as the sound level increases (some extremely so, and all speakers vary in this affect by frequency as well), and distortion can climb quickly as well.  This is not often measured for home speakers (though it is for professional/monitors), but can have a significant impact on the sound of the speaker.  If I remember correctly, many home speaker designs are actually pretty poor in this regard (can't remember where I read the test data...)

These are just some of the reasons there is no "best" objective speaker.  That said, there are clearly more accurate designs, and room interaction is very important.
Was that a 1 or a 0?