KEF R3 OR BOWER & WILKINS S706 s2 ???

[bodhi]

It’s worth remembering here: Amir and thus most ASR members are evaluating speakers generally using the research cited by Toole et al as identifying how a good sounding speaker will tend to measure.

And it is a good thing. I think this will provide the best possible baseline for discussions. Without a baseline it's quite impossible to give and receive recommendations as these would be based on how certain speaker makes us feel in our room with our preferred music. With a baseline in place it's useful information to say that one likes boosted bass and treble and therefore certain B&W speakers sounds better to him than for example R3.

It is of course too strict to say that accurate speaker is a better speaker. But it is still way more correct than to say that B&W is better because some people like it more. We know that in blind test most people prefer more accurate speaker and also that by learning objective listening one's preference tends to shift towards more accurate speakers.

This causes some emotional reactions if one thinks that the preference one has acquired for certain sounding speakers is more "pure" and acknowledging that there might be "better" preference feels like dismissing ones personal opinions. It still wouldn't hurt if the B&W aficionado tries some critical listening based on the research at least to understand what is meant by accurate in this context. Well, it can hurt because after this exercise one might not stop noticing the boosted bass and treble and it ruins the speaker forever, placing the hobbyist with unimaginative masses of people preferring "accurate" speakers.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Hmm... do we get to avoid @preload's question by saying "neutral" though?

No because preload also mixes / confuses his personal preference with what a majority prefers based on scientific studies (eg Harman). And again nothing wrong with deviating from the “majority”, but that does not mean that a subjective uncontrolled preference is a scientific replicable universally valid data point (it is only valid for the individual not for anyone else - yeah maybe for entertainment).

 

[symphara]

If you are using Tooles research as a guide you are using general preferences for subjectively pleasurable sound as your guide and goal.

It's fine to use it as a guide, but general preferences as your goal? I don't understand that.

If research shows, say, that 70% of people prefer some FR curve, that's the first thing I look at. Because I'd assume I will more likely than not share that opinion. If I had to audition speakers, I would look at those with measurements first, and from those, select the ones matching the widest preference. And this is btw what I do now. It's thus the guide. But it wouldn't be my goal, that would be the subjectively pleasurable sound, as you call it.

 

[Benedium]

It's fine to use it as a guide, but general preferences as your goal? I don't understand that.

If research shows, say, that 70% of people prefer some FR curve, that's the first thing I look at. Because I'd assume I will more likely than not share that opinion. If I had to audition speakers, I would look at those with measurements first, and from those, select the ones matching the widest preference. And this is btw what I do now. It's thus the guide. But it wouldn't be my goal, that would be the subjectively pleasurable sound, as you call it.

Not expert but maybe its like who decided what is 0 deg Celsius? Science guys. Maybe people had arguments over it too.

 

[preload]

I think the main argument against this is that amir though [the R3] didn't sound good, which is actually not true at all. Of course after the lie became apparent the story now changed a bit, as it usually does.

The only "lie" here is failing to acknowledge that Amir, indeed, did not like the sound of the R3 in his room. He had to apply EQ to make it sound right. I and others have copied the direct quotes form Amir for everyone to read so it's not like people can't see this for themselves.

 

[preload]

You won’t stop peddling your subjective and unfounded nonsense won’t you (eg good Directivity prevents you from adjusting sound by toe in ). It shows a fundamental lack of understanding yet you insist on its correctness.

Are you sure you, yourself, understand?
Smooth directivity means the resultant FR at the MLP is less likely to change as a function of listening angle because the room-reflected FR curve resembles the on-axis/direct response. Whereas if the off-axis response differs more from the on-axis, the resultant sound signature is more likely to change, and the speaker is more toe-in sensitive.

So why do you even come to a science forum. Plenty of others where your pseudo scientific anecdotes would be appreciated.

I didn't read any pseudoscience from his posts and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Yes you personally don’t like KEF, we get it after a gazzillion of your posts.

I own/owned a couple of lower end Kefs over the years and have the exact same impression - that in general they sound dull/boring.

 

[TrevC]

Then do learn please (plenty of resources here and elsewhere) and if you don’t understand come here and ask questions. Nothing wrong with not knowing.

But please refrain from universal statements based on personal preferences, a personal lack of understanding and without a shred of replicable evidence.

Or do whatever you want, I am done as I get the impression we are all feeding your nonsense responses by giving you attention.

Are you a happy member who likes to discuss audio?

 

[preload]

No because preload also mixes / confuses his personal preference with what a majority prefers based on scientific studies (eg Harman).

You clearly don't understand my point, which is fine. I practice and interpret "science" for a living. And the inability and unwillingness of some folks here to understand "science" is bewildering. It's like you think you know, but you actually don't. "Science" is not limited to what you can measure using a test instrument, no matter how much you wish this to be true. "Science" dies when folks stop thinking, making observations, and generating hypotheses.

And again nothing wrong with deviating from the “majority”, but that does not mean that a subjective uncontrolled preference is a scientific replicable universally valid data point (it is only valid for the individual not for anyone else - yeah maybe for entertainment).

Except that once again, aggregated "subjective" observations that are similar tend to be hypothesis-generating. I get that you dont understand that there's an entire discipline of scientific research that studies natural phenomena in this way, but perhaps you should consider that you might not actually know!

 

[preload]

Are you a happy member who likes to discuss audio?

LOL.

 

[AdamG]

Everyone pull your claws in and take a less argessive approach. If this conversation is getting to you walk away from it. Everyone has a different learning curve and starting knowledge level. So please slow your roll and engage in faithful communication and learning. Not all our Members speak English fluently and things can easily get lost in translation.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[symphara]

You clearly don't understand my point, which is fine. I practice and interpret "science" for a living. And the inability and unwillingness of some folks here to understand "science" is bewildering. It's like you think you know, but you actually don't.

It's illuminating to read the Kef blade 2 meta frequency response thread and the contribution of the actual speaker designers.

If they listen when they make it, we should listen before buying it.

 

[preload]

And it is a good thing. I think this will provide the best possible baseline for discussions. Without a baseline it's quite impossible to give and receive recommendations as these would be based on how certain speaker makes us feel in our room with our preferred music. With a baseline in place it's useful information to say that one likes boosted bass and treble and therefore certain B&W speakers sounds better to him than for example R3.

Interesting - and I want to make sure that you were aware that Harman's own research found that there are, in fact, legitimate differences in preferences for quantities of bass and treble among listeners. These bass/treble preferences vary based on age, gender, and country of residence. Are you suggesting that the preferences of certain listeners who prefer a specific quantity of bass and treble are somehow less valid than yours? Perhaps you can clarify what you mean.

It is of course too strict to say that accurate speaker is a better speaker. But it is still way more correct than to say that B&W is better because some people like it more. We know that in blind test most people prefer more accurate speaker and also that by learning objective listening one's preference tends to shift towards more accurate speakers.

No, we do not know that. Have you read the papers? We know that in a blind test, listeners tend to give higher preference scores for speakers with certain measured characteristics. The studied model does not strictly measure "accuracy," which is a term that has yet to be defined here in the context of loudspeakers.

It still wouldn't hurt if the B&W aficionado tries some critical listening based on the research at least to understand what is meant by accurate in this context. Well, it can hurt because after this exercise one might not stop noticing the boosted bass and treble and it ruins the speaker forever, placing the hobbyist with unimaginative masses of people preferring "accurate" speakers.

There are many folks who have listened to, and enjoy the sound of B&W speakers enough to purchase a pair. As a current/past owner of Genelecs (multiple models, including the 8351B), Revel m126Be's, and the KEF LSX, I can tell you that I've done plenty of listening to speakers that some people refer to as subjectively "accurate" (again, a term which has an ill-defined meaning for speakers).

You simply can't assume that just because someone happens to own a pair of B&W's that they've never heard speakers that you consider accurate (whatever that means).

 

[Vacceo]

Problem being that I don't think that B&W fans actually agree that why they like the sound is because of intentionally incorrect frequency response, even though the measurements and the subjective impressions match. So they also won't agree that you could get the same magic by altering the response of a speaker with correct frequency response.

You can, however, take a neutral speaker and modify the sound by rising up the high frequencies. EQ does magic in that regard.

 

[Galliardist]

You can, however, take a neutral speaker and modify the sound by rising up the high frequencies. EQ does magic in that regard.

I’m not convinced that you can take any speakers, put them in any room, and just EQ them to taste. The speakers you choose have to be able to take that EQ and still work in that room.

If you need a rising treble response plenty of speakers have that and are likely to be a better starting point for you with or without EQ.

 

[Vacceo]

Seems like Genelec users disagree with that perception. Sure, not every single speaker can, but this is ASR, we don't just use any speaker...

 

[Galliardist]

Seems like Genelec users disagree with that perception. Sure, not every single speaker can, but this is ASR, we don't just use any speaker...

I see more B&W owners on this forum than I see people posting “how do I make my Genelecs sound like B&Ws?”

Which is fortunate because the name “Audio Asylum” is already taken

 

[Vacceo]

I see more B&W owners on this forum than I see people posting “how do I make my Genelecs sound like B&Ws?”

Which is fortunate because the name “Audio Asylum” is already taken

Actually what I typically read around here is users aiming at a neutral sound.

 

[thewas]

Like in the headphone section, some people criticise the Harman listening tests and methodology (even I do on some issues) but on the other hand we have to admit that unfortunately no other audio company/group is doing similar controlled listening tests which wouldn't be too difficult especially for the big players, so it makes one wonder why they don't as it would be also a great marketing tool. Also till then all alternative views about listeners preference belong rather to anecdotal stories and speculations.

Till then I can also only recommend every real interested enthusiast to do their own tests and find their own preferences. For example in the last 2 decades I have been strongly experimenting with different loudspeakers and EQ/targets and despite thinking my initial strategies were better than what Toole recommends would be better, I ended up preferring what he recommends, namely loudspeakers with smooth response and directivity equalised to a flat direct sound above room transition frequency. Having also had few stronger voiced loudspeakers like after 2000 B&Ws in my past I can also fully understand someone getting used to their voicing as it makes even older recording sounding not aggressive but personally I enjoy more flat direct sound with good recordings as it sounds closer to my experiences of live voices and instruments, having switchable EQ makes such comparisons easily achievable. Also can only recommend to do such comparisons at several days and listening to the different choices for a similar time as after listening for a long time to even a very sounded setting makes at the switching even a neutral setting sounding strange for a short period. By the way I don't want to claim that my above experiences can or should be generalised as also for my case this is unfortunately not a controlled study with many participants so till then even if my results would differ from the Harman ones (which it seems they don't), I would never use such to deny them but hope for more research.

 

[Galliardist]

Like in the headphone section, some people criticise the Harman listening tests and methodology (even I do on some issues) but on the other hand we have to admit that unfortunately no other audio company/group is doing similar controlled listening tests which wouldn't be too difficult especially for the big players, so it makes one wonder why they don't as it would be also a great marketing tool. Also till then all alternative views about listeners preference belong rather to anecdotal stories and speculations.

Till then I can also only recommend every real interested enthusiast to do their own tests and find their own preferences. For example in the last 2 decades I have been strongly experimenting with different loudspeakers and EQ/targets and despite thinking my initial strategies were better than what Toole recommends would be better, I ended up preferring what he recommends, namely loudspeakers with smooth response and directivity equalised to a flat direct sound above room transition frequency. Having also had few stronger voiced loudspeakers like after 2000 B&Ws in my past I can also fully understand someone getting used to their voicing as it makes even older recording sounding not aggressive but personally I enjoy more flat direct sound with good recordings as it sounds closer to my experiences of live voices and instruments, having switchable EQ makes such comparisons easily achievable. Also can only recommend to do such comparisons at several days and listening to the different choices for a similar time as after listening for a long time to even a very sounded setting makes at the switching even a neutral setting sounding strange for a short period. By the way I don't want to claim that my above experiences can or should be generalised as also for my case this is unfortunately not a controlled study with many participants so till then even if my results would differ from the Harman ones (which it seems they don't), I would never use such to deny them but hope for more research.

Actually, we don't know that other companies aren't. And I believe that at least some of Harman's research (should we call it Samsung's now?) will be kept internal in the future.

For all we know, B&W have a library of work supporting what appears to be their target. How can we tell, when all the companies actually want to do is tell a gullible market that a key designer, "sound master" or whatever, does special unmeasurable magic to make their products better than everyone else's?

 

[thewas]

Actually, we don't know that other companies aren't.

Many loudspeaker companies do some kind listening benchmarking comparisons but in my limited experience in a quite primitive way. Also the question is if they did with favorable results, why wouldn't they use it for their marketing, as Harman does.

For all we know, B&W have a library of work supporting what appears to be their target.

Could you please concretize this? I only know of few white papers of some older 800 series.