Should we (I) get into speaker testing & measurement

[Blumlein 88]

45 years young, in fact.

Okay, surprising to me. 45 isn't as young as I would have guessed.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Your posts strike me as those of someone young, enthusiastic and inexperienced. I do not mean that as an insult. It is an observation.

I'll tell a tale (a true one) which probably won't get through to you, but hey what can I do?

One of my best mates in school was a couple years into his first position as a mechanical design engineer. He called me up just bitterly complaining because his boss had vetoed the design department getting the top of the line color, two sided, high resolution copier currently the best on the market. He described the extreme conservatism of his boss, and how he seemed unable to grasp the benefits of such a machine. His boss even said the cost wasn't the problem. His boss was simply going by a credo of conservatism and the idea enough is enough and too much can only complicate things. Complication inherently creates problems. So a good quality black and white copier was the way to go. My friend was very forward looking and innovative always looking to go further faster than the competition. In time he parted ways with that outfit over repeated clashes with his boss with the overly conservative approach. His boss was an eminent engineer of many accomplishments.

Now, my friend is probably in context about twice as conservative as the boss he couldn't stand when that boss was his current age. Even his wife jokes with me that he is the only design engineer she knows that has become anti-technology. I don't know how that all happened, but it just did. I hear him telling of keeping it simple in ways he once would have denounced as anti-deluvian thinking. Within his box of thinking it all makes very good sense. He even knows this about himself. And yet, feelings and rationality interact in strange ways. Aging plays a part that is more than just years.

And as a final comment on this post. Higher quality audio has pretty much always been the province of late middle age men. They are a somewhat conservative bunch just by being affluent middle age men. Innovation happens, and things do advance, but often much slower in the short term than you think.

Active speakers are not a new technology. They have been superior for years. But now it's just gotten far more practical to build them at much higher standards, for much less cost. With the size and efficiency of class D amps, and tiny high performance DSP boards. It's just a no brainer. And from a user perspective it highly simplifies things, reduces clutter, and will allow you to get laid once in a while. Because women will tolerate them. So the only people who won't buy them now are the folks holding on the age old biases. Because for anyone without these age old biases, active is a no brainer.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Links? References?

Pick up the phone. Send some emails. Don't be lazy.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There's been ample studies on the demographics who buy active vs passive speakers. Ask any large manufacturer who builds both.

I don't really have any ax to grind with active speakers. I buy them. I have wished they were more available in more choices than is currently the case. The idea it is the only good choice is one I'd chafe against at this point in time. For that matter as long as someone knows the difference, I don't find reason to chastise someone who sticks with less than the best for other reasons.

I'd like to see Amir test and find actives wipe the floor of all passives. Would love it. I don't think it will be quite that clear yet. If so then great.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Active speakers are not a new technology. They have been superior for years. But now it's just gotten far more practical to build them at much higher standards, for much less cost. With the size and efficiency of class D amps, and tiny high performance DSP boards. It's just a no brainer. And from a user perspective it highly simplifies things, reduces clutter, and will allow you to get laid once in a while. Because women will tolerate them. So the only people who won't buy them now are the folks holding on the age old biases. Because for anyone without these age old biases, active is a no brainer.

So the only people who won't buy them now are the folks holding on the age old biases. Because for anyone without these age old biases, active is a no brainer.

This part is unnecessarily antagonistic. You can make your argument without it.

and will allow you to get laid once in a while.

This part is being insulting when you have no reason to do so. Anyone who doesn't make your choices is some sort of poor human who can't get laid? Come on lighten up.

 

[Wombat]

Pick up the phone. Send some emails. Don't be lazy.

There is the reversal of burden of proof argument again.

 

[Audiocrusader]

and will allow you to get laid once in a while.

This part is being insulting when you have no reason to do so. Anyone who doesn't make your choices is some sort of poor human who can't get laid? Come on lighten up.

Sorry I was just reading this header right before that post:


"Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously."

 

[Wombat]

So the only people who won't buy them now are the folks holding on the age old biases. Because for anyone without these age old biases, active is a no brainer.

This part is unnecessarily antagonistic. You can make your argument without it.

and will allow you to get laid once in a while.

This part is being insulting when you have no reason to do so. Anyone who doesn't make your choices is some sort of poor human who can't get laid? Come on lighten up.

Speaking of no brainer.

 

[Audiocrusader]

You guys are getting angry. and I'm laughing over here. So who's actually in control? Unless you prefer to be angry. I have not been sending out personal attacks like I've been receiving. So if I wasn't in control I would be the angry one. But I know it's difficult being wrong. Especially when you know I'm right.

 

[Wombat]

You guys are getting angry. and I'm laughing over here. So who's actually in control? Unless you prefer to be angry. I have not been sending out personal attacks like I've been receiving. So if I wasn't in control I would be the angry one. But I know it's difficult being wrong. Especially when you know I'm right.

Your self control does not extend to checking the factual credibility of your utterings.

Members are not expressing anger at your shortcomings but are becoming less tolerant of your incredulousness and impetuousness.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Your self control does not extend to checking the factual credibility of your utterings.

Members are not expressing anger at your shortcomings but are becoming less tolerant of your incredulousness and impetuousness.

No it looks like it's only a small handful of members, who refuse to follow the rules on conduct that are not liking my posts. There's 6908 members on ASR and only 3-4 who are upset with the factual data I've been sharing here. Perhaps these 3-4 members should be taking advantage of the ignore feature if they don't have a handle on their personal emotions.

 

[amirm]

Let's dial it down please. This is not helping me get an analyzer.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Let's dial it down please. This is not helping me get an analyzer.

So you don't like my donation recommendation?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Let's dial it down please. This is not helping me get an analyzer.

Have you refined your thoughts on how to proceed in that direction other than putting up more of your own funds? I keep buying Amazon products with the affiliation. But I'm probably not a consumer enough to make a big dent in the Klippel fund that way.

 

[BillW]

Since testing speakers would require enormous resources in money, time and physical space and on-going costs of shipping etc, I'm wondering what is the use case here for ASR? and for what audience?

If the goal for ASR is to satisfy a technical curiosity (or perhaps even further the science) then it has value to a very small audience. This is totally fine but be realistic as to its wider impact.

If the goal is to educate the masses (like me for example) on better speakers and getting better value for money on speakers then one has to pose the question will any of this "science" information be accepted by the wider audience. I was reading tonight a subjective review about the PS Audio DS DAC, the $6K DAC that's 20db down from Redbook! And it was a fawning praise of a technically inferior product by a someone who "believes" in Audiophile Ethernet switches, cables and USB cables having "...a profound impact on sound quality" . The comment section was also full of fawning praise for the author too (I don't any of these people so he could be great I don't know). Would any of these people be swayed by Amir's real science on speakers ?

If the goal is to bring the light of science to help cure the disease Audiophilia would it not then be a better use of resources to investigate other types of more easily tested Snake Oil? It seems (to my limited experience of course) that these Snake Oil products and peddlers go not only unchallenged but there is an entrenched elitism built around the Cathedral that if you can't hear difference even if an audible difference is physically impossible, you're a peasant. Perhaps this is an old battle (mostly likely given the behavior of humans) not worth continuing, just better to vacate the field to the victors.

Or is the goal of speaker testing rather a buyers guide for people who aren't afflicted with Audiophilia? Ok fair enough. But again, is the enormity of the cost worth the result? I'm a non-technical enthusiast in the audio realm. I'm not an EE, recording engineer, etc. I'm not a professional in this arena. So I would most likely benefit greatly from a speaker database that could narrow upgrade choices and help clarify real value for money. I understand and agree with how science works but I would struggle with spending large amounts of money (relative to my income) without hearing the speakers for myself. Plus there are intangibles in aesthetics like fit and finish, build quality and if Actives are included there are a ton of streaming options, connectivity etc, to consider as well.

I fully acknowledge my limitations here. In addition Amir is volunteering his time so obviously he has to want to do it. Testing speakers with some very cool gear sounds a whole lot more interesting than testing Ethernet cables

Thanks for reading if you made it this far,
Bill.

 

[Wombat]

Since testing speakers would require enormous resources in money, time and physical space and on-going costs of shipping etc, I'm wondering what is the use case here for ASR? and for what audience?

If the goal for ASR is to satisfy a technical curiosity (or perhaps even further the science) then it has value to a very small audience. This is totally fine but be realistic as to its wider impact.

If the goal is to educate the masses (like me for example) on better speakers and getting better value for money on speakers then one has to pose the question will any of this "science" information be accepted by the wider audience. I was reading tonight a subjective review about the PS Audio DS DAC, the $6K DAC that's 20db down from Redbook! And it was a fawning praise of a technically inferior product by a someone who "believes" in Audiophile Ethernet switches, cables and USB cables having "...a profound impact on sound quality" . The comment section was also full of fawning praise for the author too (I don't any of these people so he could be great I don't know). Would any of these people be swayed by Amir's real science on speakers ?

If the goal is to bring the light of science to help cure the disease Audiophilia would it not then be a better use of resources to investigate other types of more easily tested Snake Oil? It seems (to my limited experience of course) that these Snake Oil products and peddlers go not only unchallenged but there is an entrenched elitism built around the Cathedral that if you can't hear difference even if an audible difference is physically impossible, you're a peasant. Perhaps this is an old battle (mostly likely given the behavior of humans) not worth continuing, just better to vacate the field to the victors.

Or is the goal of speaker testing rather a buyers guide for people who aren't afflicted with Audiophilia? Ok fair enough. But again, is the enormity of the cost worth the result? I'm a non-technical enthusiast in the audio realm. I'm not an EE, recording engineer, etc. I'm not a professional in this arena. So I would most likely benefit greatly from a speaker database that could narrow upgrade choices and help clarify real value for money. I understand and agree with how science works but I would struggle with spending large amounts of money (relative to my income) without hearing the speakers for myself. Plus there are intangibles in aesthetics like fit and finish, build quality and if Actives are included there are a ton of streaming options, connectivity etc, to consider as well.

I fully acknowledge my limitations here. In addition Amir is volunteering his time so obviously he has to want to do it. Testing speakers with some very cool gear sounds a whole lot more interesting than testing Ethernet cables

Thanks for reading if you made it this far,
Bill.

A clear case for market research preceding a business case.

If it is a personal interest endeavour then asking for others to help pay for it is more a relationship thing.

 

[echopraxia]

If the goal is to bring the light of science to help cure the disease Audiophilia would it not then be a better use of resources to investigate other types of more easily tested Snake Oil?

Honestly, I really don't think that would be a better use of resources! I'll explain:

Customer Segments for Snake-Oil Products:

We all know there are many products out there, for which multiple published articles exist (written by competent scientists/engineers) debunking these products as bogus 'snake-oil'. Yet people still buy them.

Why? Among those who buy snake-oil or low-performance-per-dollar products despite the existence of credible evidence debunking them, there are a few important categories:

1. Those that buy them due to a priority on social value and/or aesthetic preference (fashionable items, popular items, aesthetic decorative value) overpowering interest in the actual functional performance of the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to personal value systems and priorities. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

​

2. Those that buy them due to (mistaken) belief in superior functional performance, where this belief is due to lack of awareness of the scientific stance on the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to persuasive marketing, and lack of education. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

​

3. Those that buy them due to (mistaken) belief in superior functional performance, where this belief is due to intentional rejection of the scientific stance on the product. The prevalence of this segment is due to stubborn opinions and willful science-denial. Additional objective scientific material will not (alone) reduce the population of this category.​

To those in segment (3), no amount of further scientific evidence is even remotely likely to change their opinion. They have already consumed a great deal of scientific evidence and theory but have chosen to dispute/reject it all anyway, simply because it disagrees with what they want to believe. There's a famous old quote that's very relevant here: "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

Conclusions:

Across all of the customer segments identified above for snake-oil products, I've explained why adding more scientific evidence to the pile would not significantly reduce their sales. In contrast, third-party scientific effort in the audiophile world will yield the greatest 'return on investment' (to consumers) if focused such that it most benefits those who are aware of and do not largely deny the value of the science on this topic. To this segment of 'informed objectivists', the greatest ROI is yielded by maximizing our ability to find the best sounding speaker at a given price point [1].

On the other hand: If your ultimate goal is to convince the extreme science-deniers of the audiophile world over to even the moderate science-accepting camp, this would not only be an extraordinarily difficult and potentially expensive task, but would have to be approached very differently than this site's current mission (as I understand it) of gathering objective scientific data on audiophile products. Such a goal would be much more of an educational outreach and de-radicalization mission, than a scientific one.

For example, you will not succeed in such a mission if you start with scientific measurements like SINAD or spinoramas. Those are only valuable to people who already believe in the scientific methods and theories underpinning them. Many subjectivists aren't even convinced in the value of most blind tests, so you'd have to start there. But even there, it's not clear that you'd even be able to make any progress here (no matter the amount of time, effort, and money invested in such an endeavor), due to the stubborn stance of many in this camp. Do you really want to go down that road?

In contrast, we do know that if the same effort was invested in generating high quality standardized measurements of a wide variety of speakers from an unbiased third party, the benefit to the audiophile community (and consumers of speakers in general) would be immense. This would be historically unprecedented, and IMO would offer more value and benefit to consumers than the sum total of all subjective reviews from audiophile journalism across history

[1] This is actually of the few points of nearly universal consensus in high quality audio: Per dollar invested in a sound system, speaker choice is the single largest influence and return on investment (where "returns" are in terms of the resulting sound quality). This is followed by room treatment and correction (equalization), followed by amplifiers and DACs, followed lastly by everything else.

 

[riker1384]

Sounds good. But you should really focus mostly on active speakers because for a true objectivist, that's the only choice. Owning a passive speaker just means you're still being sucked in by audiophile myths. And busting myths is what ASR is all about.

Owning passive speakers means I care about longevity and value for the money. Speakers last for decades. If a receiver fails, I can get another receiver for under $100 any day of the week on Craigslist.

If the electronics on a moderately priced active speaker fail, it's probably going in the trash. Component-level repairs by electronics technicians are way too expensive. Replacement boards may not be available from the manufacturer, and if they are there's a good chance they might cost more than the market value of the speakers. This has been the case with powered subwoofers I've had-the cost of a plate amp from the manufacturer was more the cost of buying another working sub on the used market.

Here are measurements of some of my "inferior" passive speakers:
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/energy_rc_10/

 

[echopraxia]

Owning passive speakers means I care about longevity and value for the money. Speakers last for decades. If a receiver fails, I can get another receiver for under $100 any day of the week on Craigslist.

If the electronics on a moderately priced active speaker fail, it's probably going in the trash. Component-level repairs by electronics technicians are way too expensive. Replacement boards may not be available from the manufacturer, and if they are there's a good chance they might cost more than the market value of the speakers. This has been the case with powered subwoofers I've had-the cost of a plate amp from the manufacturer was more the cost of buying another working sub on the used market.

Here are measurements of some of my "inferior" passive speakers:
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/energy_rc_10/

Oh, and here’s another good example that popped up on this forum just today, which further proves just how very wrong @Audiocrusader is here about active vs passive speakers:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/elac-navis-arf-51-active-measurements.9762/

This is an active speaker, and it has bad measurements. They’re not spins, but they have enough data to identify serious flaws already. I think even my old Bowers and Wilkins measured better than these, and those are IMO not great speakers (certainly compared to e.g. Revel or KEF or Ascend).

Like we’ve been saying over and over, active speakers enable great benefits when used correctly (though with increased cost), but they do not guarantee the speaker will be better than passive one at the same (or even significantly lesser) price.

It’s all about the quality of the particular implementation of the speaker in question. Refusing to buy anything but active speakers would be foolishly close-minded, akin to refusing to buy a high performance car unless it uses a very specific engineering design choice you believe — but cannot prove — will make it faster. Why not just test the products, to see which product performs better with an open mind, and proceed from there?

This is true for all products. Don’t fall for buzz-words or technological components that claim to make a product inherently superior. Test the product. If it’s superior, it will show.

 

[Audiocrusader]

Oh, and here’s another good example that popped up on this forum just today, which further proves just how very wrong @Audiocrusader is here about active vs passive speakers:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/elac-navis-arf-51-active-measurements.9762/

This is an active speaker, and it has bad measurements. They’re not spins, but they have enough data to identify serious flaws already. I think even my old Bowers and Wilkins measured better than these, and those are IMO not great speakers (certainly compared to e.g. Revel or KEF or Ascend).

Like we’ve been saying over and over, active speakers enable great benefits when used correctly (though with increased cost), but they do not guarantee the speaker will be better than passive one at the same (or even significantly lesser) price.

It’s all about the quality of the particular implementation of the speaker in question. Refusing to buy anything but active speakers would be foolishly close-minded, akin to refusing to buy a high performance car unless it uses a very specific engineering design choice you believe — but cannot prove — will make it faster. Why not just test the products, to see which product performs better with an open mind, and proceed from there?

This is true for all products. Don’t fall for buzz-words or technological components that claim to make a product inherently superior. Test the product. If it’s superior, it will show.

I don't recall claiming that all active speakers in the world are good. Of course there's good and bad products of every type. What I've claimed is it's possible to build an active speaker well beyond the performance of what is possible with a system based on passive speakers, for far less money. Of course this will take proper education and good shopping to discover. This is why I'm all for Amir getting this machine.