Lack of high-end speaker reviews

[Duke]

Thanks to Duke for the extensive consideration of my question and references.

I think a cornerstone of your commentary (best read when interleaved with my original post) is your understanding that the delays in small rooms, with speakers moved away from walls, are sufficient to create a perceptual impression of more depth. That is not in accordance with my reading of Toole.

I think Toole is clear enough that small rooms (ie domestic listening rooms) are manifestly inadequate for that task, and cannot do anything but get in the way. Close to walls or distant, same-same. The delay thresholds for depth perception are much longer than domestic rooms can do.

cheers

I AGREE WITH YOU that the delays in small rooms are INSUFFICIENT to create the perceptual impression of significant depth!

BUT those delays CAN BE sufficient to enable the spatial cues ALREADY ON THE RECORDING to effectively convey the recording's impression of depth. That's why they are worth the trouble, in my opinion.

 

[sigbergaudio]

You can absolutely hear the differences between speakers in mono

I have never claimed otherwise.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Also, @amirm mentioned in this thread that if the manufacturer requests it, he can do the subjective listening part of the review in stereo. So there's no excuse not to send speakers in because of that.

I find it interesting that you and others basically demand manufacturers send stuff to Amir. To put it politely, that is pretty impolite.

For the record: I offered to send the SBS.1 to Amir back in 2022, but by then it was already reviewed by Audioholics, so then it was turned down by Amir on the grounds that it wouldn't add any additional value since the measurements were already done. I also offered to send it to Erin, and Erin replied the same. The measurements for the Manta is also already done and published.

 

[Keith_W]

I think Toole is clear enough that small rooms (ie domestic listening rooms) are manifestly inadequate for that task, and cannot do anything but get in the way. Close to walls or distant, same-same. The delay thresholds for depth perception are much longer than domestic rooms can do.

I read Duke's comments and yours with interest and I wondered whether it is possible to simulate depth perception with DSP. I have a friend with a cardioid DIY speaker design with rear firing tweeters, midrange, and woofers, all driven with 15 channels of amp per speaker, each with its own DAC channel - i.e. he has the capability to send exactly the same signal rearwards as forwards. Do you know what the delay thresholds are? It wouldn't be too difficult for him (or us) to whip up a quick filter with the delays baked in as an experiment.

 

[restorer-john]

and I wondered whether it is possible to simulate depth perception with DSP.

Just go buy a 1985 Yamaha DSP-1.

Move your walls (3D volume), roof, height, wall reflections, HPF/LPF, delays whatever, for 4 additional channels.

 

[Keith_W]

Just go buy a 1985 Yamaha DSP-1.

Move your walls (3D volume), roof, height, wall reflections, HPF/LPF, delays whatever, for 4 additional channels.

Thanks. I already have Acourate, I can easily whip up something similar on my own. But my speakers are forward firing only, so the duplicate signal can have the delay and attenuation, but it won't have the directionality of a reflection. I believe that might be crucial. And i'm not sure what houses are like in Queensland, but my house is solidly built and the walls can't be easily moved

BTW this is a fantastic debate, I wish it was split off into its own thread.

 

[Sancus]

I find it interesting that you and others basically demand manufacturers send stuff to Amir. To put it politely, that is pretty impolite.

I honestly don't see why people get combative about this. The measurements you've provided seem entirely reasonable to me, and if people are so curious about the scores or whatever those can be found on pierre's spinorama db.

A review from Amir or Erin would add a data point but that's about it. It would be nice but I completely agree their time is better used on speakers we don't have quality measurements for.

I have found that to be true particularly of the center channel speaker. Ime a good two-channel system's phantom center image has more depth. Which doesn't really matter on movies, but imo that sense of depth adds to the experience with music videos. I have multiple customers who sold their center channel speakers because they no longer preferred to use them.

Center channels sound substantially better than phantom center because of crosstalk cancellation. This is well-documented and studied. The "depth" you're talking about is exactly the problem, phantom center sounds indistinct and vague. That is an inaccuracy, not a beneficial spatial effect at all. Vocals are noticeably off from how they're supposed to sound and do sound in acoustic settings. They just come out inaccurate, and you can't fix it with EQ or by moving your speakers around. The best you can do is get as far away from the speakers as possible so you're mostly hearing reflected sound which reduces the interference, but that creates its own separate issues.

I've never seen any evidence that phantom center actually sounds better, just appeals to subjectivity.

Speaking for myself, not everyone has a place for 3+ additional speakers.

No disagreement there, compromises always have to be made somewhere. My disagreement is with the people who believe stereo is just better in some way, regardless of compromises or constraints.

 

[sigbergaudio]

...and you won't be able to discriminate the differences in such qualities as well when listening to stereo...

View attachment 340827

View attachment 340829

Thank you, I am aware of the study. My claim was not that you could not detect or differentiate while listening to mono.

My claim is that The Manta sounds different and better with regards to immersiveness and soundstage / imaging than basically any speaker I have ever heard, including other cardioid designs. To fully experience this effect, you cannot listen in mono. In fact you cannot even sit outside of the main listening position.

The reason I am pointing this out is that my comment was in reply to "(...)whether it [this particular design] provides a dimension to sound reproduction which is a major qualitative improvement over other designs."

Personally I think the answer is yes, and that one of the main aspects is improved immersiveness and soundstage when listening in stereo. I do not think this will be appreciated fully when auditing a single speaker.

 

[Duke]

I read Duke's comments and yours with interest and I wondered whether it is possible to simulate depth perception with DSP. I have a friend with a cardioid DIY speaker design with rear firing tweeters, midrange, and woofers, all driven with 15 channels of amp per speaker, each with its own DAC channel - i.e. he has the capability to send exactly the same signal rearwards as forwards. Do you know what the delay thresholds are? It wouldn't be too difficult for him (or us) to whip up a quick filter with the delays baked in as an experiment.

This sounds very interesting!

10 milliseconds to 20 milliseconds total delay for the rear-firing drivers (reflection path length relative to the direct sound, plus digital delay, and factoring in latency for both the front and rear arrays) is the ballpark I'd suggest. 10 milliseconds is often feasible without digital delay, but getting in the 15-20 millisecond ballpark is impractical in most rooms without digital delay.

I recall reading a paper, probably an AES paper, that either proposed 15 milliseconds reflection-free interval as an industry standard, or cited same as an already-established standard, I forget which. And I don't remember anything else about that paper so I'd probably never be able to find it again.

Can you tell me a little bit about your speakers and room?

 

[sigbergaudio]

Companies asking those prices for their products should run the tests themselves and publish the results.

And after they've done that, people on ASR will still ask them to ship them to Amir.

 

[Duke]

Center channels sound substantially better than phantom center because of crosstalk cancellation.

I understand and acknowledge the 2 kHz ballpark dip that stereo speakers have and that center channel speakers do not have. Recording engineers sometimes find the exact head position for most precisely hearing the spatial cues of a recording they're working on by listening for where the 2 kHz dip is the deepest.

This is well-documented and studied. The "depth" you're talking about is exactly the problem, phantom center sounds indistinct and vague. That is an inaccuracy, not a beneficial spatial effect at all. Vocals are noticeably off from how they're supposed to sound and do sound in acoustic settings. They just come out inaccurate, and you can't fix it with EQ or by moving your speakers around. The best you can do is get as far away from the speakers as possible so you're mostly hearing reflected sound which reduces the interference, but that creates its own separate issues.

I would never expect you to believe me over your documented sources.

Can we agree to disagree about whether a good two-channel system can produce a convincing illusion of center image localization, vocal quality, and/or soundstage depth?

 

[sigbergaudio]

The "depth" you're talking about is exactly the problem, phantom center sounds indistinct and vague. That is an inaccuracy, not a beneficial spatial effect at all. Vocals are noticeably off from how they're supposed to sound and do sound in acoustic settings. They just come out inaccurate, and you can't fix it with EQ or by moving your speakers around. The best you can do is get as far away from the speakers as possible so you're mostly hearing reflected sound which reduces the interference, but that creates its own separate issues.

I've never seen any evidence that phantom center actually sounds better, just appeals to subjectivity.

Are you talking about multichannel here, where you compare a real center channel as opposed to 2.x system where the center channel is mixed to the LR speakers?

Or are you claiming the above even for original stereo content played back on a 2.x system?

 

[restorer-john]

To fully experience this effect, you cannot listen in mono. In fact you cannot even sit outside of the main listening position.

There have been plenty of loudspeakers that are designed to be listened to in stereo, and in the main listening position. And equally, speakers designed to deliver spatial qualities 'wherever you sit', again with the proviso of two loudspeakers with specific placement.

The Toole single speaker audition is flawed for such speakers.

 

[Mnyb]

Hmm can we nor fix the topic on this tread ?

There is a lack of measurements on large floor standing high performance ( or allegedly high performance) speakers . I agree.

That’s different from “high end” which nowadays implies cost close the BNP of a third world country the stuff is just silly .

 

[amirm]

There have been plenty of loudspeakers that are designed to be listened to in stereo, and in the main listening position. And equally, speakers designed to deliver spatial qualities 'wherever you sit', again with the proviso of two loudspeakers with specific placement.

The Toole single speaker audition is flawed for such speakers.

And your solution is what? That I listen in stereo in a random room, with random content and provide a random subjective remark of 'how they sound'?

 

[Blumlein 88]

There have been plenty of loudspeakers that are designed to be listened to in stereo, and in the main listening position. And equally, speakers designed to deliver spatial qualities 'wherever you sit', again with the proviso of two loudspeakers with specific placement.

The Toole single speaker audition is flawed for such speakers.

You do realize Toole compared both mono and stereo methods. Mono was the more consistent hands down. Ask j_j about directional masking and the results are not surprising.

Or explain the difference in speakers designed for stereo vs mono. Quads maybe which were also one of the best speakers for stereo or mono.

 

[sigbergaudio]

There have been plenty of loudspeakers that are designed to be listened to in stereo, and in the main listening position. And equally, speakers designed to deliver spatial qualities 'wherever you sit', again with the proviso of two loudspeakers with specific placement.

The Toole single speaker audition is flawed for such speakers.

To be clear the Manta provides better than normal spatial qualities and soundstage even outside of the sweet spot, it does not fall apart as soon as you move about. But it's even better at the sweet spot of course.

 

[Keith_W]

This sounds very interesting!

10 milliseconds to 20 milliseconds total delay for the rear-firing drivers (reflection path length relative to the direct sound, plus digital delay, and factoring in latency for both the front and rear arrays) is the ballpark I'd suggest. 10 milliseconds is often feasible without digital delay, but getting in the 15-20 millisecond ballpark is impractical in most rooms without digital delay.

Thank you. If my friend is interested, I will suggest 10-20ms delay. His speakers were DIY, the intention was to imitate the Kii Three's cardioid dispersion pattern. He is a DSP enthusiast, and he has 15 drivers per speaker (30 in total), controlled with DIY amps (also 30 channels) and an RME M-32 DAC with 32 DAC channels. The DSP is done with Acourate and CamillaDSP as the convolver. He is an incredibly smart guy. I would loooove to hear whether introducing a delayed and attenuated replica of the signal rearwards would create the impression of more spaciousness.

Can you tell me a little bit about your speakers and room?

My speakers are horns which I have DSP'ed. They are not very interesting as far as the debate about "how far speakers should be in the room" goes. They have hardly any rearwards radiation above 800Hz (maybe?). I did measure what was coming out the rear of the speaker, I should go dig it up. It might mean that I can push the speakers further back and reclaim some room space.

 

[sigbergaudio]

And your solution is what? That I listen in stereo in a random room, with random content and provide a random subjective remark of 'how they sound'?

(Replying even though this was not a question to me)

I don't think there necessarily exists a good or practical "fix" to this problem. That your current method isn't perfect doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed / could easily be improved. But we could acknowledge that there may be qualities in a speaker that isn't apparent when listening to a single speaker.

One could suggest that you listen in both mono and stereo, but that would have a number of practical implications that you may not want, and may also bring limited added value for most reviews.

In theory most are not giving a lot of weight on the subjective part of the review anyway, but I guess this thread shows that it's not without weight alltogether.

 

[Drengur]

edit: the original research included a Martin Logan which tested poorly.

That's it. To hell with science. My old Sequel 2s were great and I am going to die on that hill.