Amir recommendation criticism

[SimpleTheater]

You are looking at it in the wrong way.
A speaker that manage to score below 0 obviously will not be recommended. How did a speaker manage to score below 0 ?
The last 15 scored below 4.0, I would expect them not to be recommended except for the Jbl with 3.8 that this is quite a surprise.
Look at the speakers that scored above 4.0 and for the third time the list is not complete.
There are numbers of 5.x speakers that are not recommended 5-6 speakers this is quite a lot, again not all of them on the list.

To be blunt, you're looking at it the wrong way. You're basing all your assumptions on the "Speaker Review & Measurements" thread, and pretending it is 100% accurate. For example, the Zaph Audio ZA5.2 DIY Kit Speaker shows up on that thread with a preference rating of 5.6, but NOT recommended. Do you scratch your head and ask @amirm why that is or do you click on the link and read the review which says "There isn't lower bass. There isn't midbass. As predicted from measurements, efficiency is quite poor causing me to turn up my amplifier to very high amplification levels (1000 watts on tap) to drive them. Before you got any bass the highs were killing you and the midwoofer would start to bottom out. "

The next not recommended is the Harbeth 30, receiving a 5.3 preference rating, in this review @amirm says "...we see the dip starting around 3 kHz. Getting a 3-D plot of that region gives us this complex sound intensity: I don't think this is what you want in a speaker. Put another way, it is the classic engineering work of calling a defect a feature. We can see the havoc it plays on our early window (and sound power) directivity: "

I'm not going to go down the line on each speaker not recommended with a 4+ rating. Maybe the data behind the preference rating is wrong, maybe the formula behind the preference rating is wrong, maybe the preference rating can't take into account certain speaker characteristics. Who knows. Read the review.

 

[b1daly]

Geez, tough crowd here.

I appreciate the listening test of the speaker reviews just as a little real world check. Amir makes no claim to be the last word based on his subjective opinions. I think a speaker review without a listening test would be bizarre.

On the other hand, listening tests of DACs and amps would be pointless as for most cases any difference in perception would be almost entirely based on subjective bias as most are sonically indistinguishable, except maybe under very controlled settings. (Headphone amps are a different beast.)

Amir is honest about his potential sources of bias. You have to read the reviews, and multiple of them, it’s an ongoing conversation.

 

[st379]

I'm not going to go down the line on each speaker not recommended with a 4+ rating. Maybe the data behind the preference rating is wrong, maybe the formula behind the preference rating is wrong, maybe the preference rating can't take into account certain speaker characteristics. Who knows. Read the review.

Who said I did not read the reviews? ( Mod edit )
I admit i did not understand all the measurements data but couple of time the measurements looks solid but the speaker was not recommended.
When you will want to go down the line of checking some of the reviews that I did not understand let me know but don't make assumptions that I did not read the reviews because i did.

 

[SimpleTheater]

Who said I did not read the reviews? Is it your retarded claim or you have evidences to back up this claim?
I admit i did not understand all the measurements data but couple of time the measurements looks solid but the speaker was not recommended.
When you will want to go down the line of checking some of the reviews that I did not understand let me know but don't make assumptions that I did not read the reviews because i did.

Yes I have evidence. This entire thread.

 

[st379]

Yes I have evidence. This entire thread.

I talked mostly about Kef and the fact that some of the speakers are really expensive but scores low so I have no idea why are you giving me the DIY as an example it was not made by a company but i did read the review before you post your attacking post.
Someone gave the list as an example so we talked in general about the scores, I did not claim there were not some speakers with problems.

 

[SimpleTheater]

I talked mostly about Kef and the fact that some of the speakers are really expensive but scores low so I have no idea why are you giving me the DIY as an example it was not made by a company but i did read the review before you post your attacking post.
Someone gave the list as an example so we talked in general about the scores, I did not claim there were not some speakers with problems.

Good. We’re in complete agreement.

 

[raistlin65]

It seems to me that it is not a good idea for Amir to post his subjective impressions, just measurements.
But on the other hand, this is your forum and maybe it's your fun to do it.

I absolutely don't understand why that's a problem.

Ever read Josh Ricci's subwoofer reviews? He led the way in extensive comprehensive testing of subwoofers. But he also included a subjective section to his reviews when he wrote for Audioholics.

What about Tyll Hertensen of Innerfidelity? Well known for his extensive headphone measurements. And each one of his reviews included both subjective evaluations of comfort and the audio quality.

Neither of those reviewers efforts providing measurements were diminished by including their subjective evaluations. If anything, I would encourage Amir to do a little bit more.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

What about Tyll Hertensen of Innerfidelity? Well known for his extensive headphone measurements. And each one of his reviews included both subjective evaluations of comfort and the audio quality.

He listened to both the left and right and right side of the headphones.

 

[amirm]

He listened to both the left and right and right side of the headphones.

Maybe that was a mistake....

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

Maybe that was a mistake....

Well you could be right, it worked for van Gogh.

 

[amirm]

Well you could be right, it worked for van Gogh.

Better yet he should have closed one eye as well. Maybe a nostril as that sound surely screwed things up as well.

I would draw the line at standing on one foot. My back won't be able to take it....

 

[simplywyn]

Think whatever you like; it matters not to me.

I took them both to work, where I listen to decent headphones on a JDS Labs Atom amp most of the day. With the Modi 3, I listened all day with no fatigue. With the Khadas, I was done by 2PM. I switched back and forth for nearly a month, and the result was always the same. There was no bias, as I did not care which one I kept. They were the same price and performed the same function. I had a clear preference for the Modi.

The placebo problem is strong here. Did you know that you switched to Modi? If you did, placebo would've made the test session inconclusive.

 

[amirm]

Yep, looks fixed.

While claiming it fixed the room modes issue you are advised to ignore the dip at 75 Hz that got deeper and the wide dip between 130 and 180Hz that also got deeper. You should also ignore peak at 240hz and especially that one at 580Hz and also dips at 310Hz and 850Hz which remained the same.

So are we supposed to believe that after applying that simple filter which effects I showed Kef R3 became a whole lot better speaker in the subjective opinion of our host? That bass is no more "boomy" and that all details are now revealed? Well sure, I mean he's a trained listener so no reason not to trust him..

Your statements about what I was trying to do is completely incorrect. I was not attempting to eliminate all the room modes, or make some flat response out of the combination of room and speaker. I was troubleshooting a problem of a speaker having more bass, not sounding as good as another with similar response but less bass. There was a diagnostic process leading to this from my review:

As stated, due to strong resonance at 100 Hz, and reason mentioned above, some of the higher up frequencies were obscured. Pulling down that one tone reduces that ringing and with it, lower amplitude tones at higher frequencies are heard easier.

And no, I did not try to 100% match the resonance in question. As I clearly said, I dialed in a quick correction and it created the right outcome with multiple speakers (tested since) so I stay with it.

With respect to frequencies of 240, 580 Hz, etc. you are listing, you are really wrapped around the axle there. Those frequencies are at or above transition area so you are dealing with combination of the room and or just the speaker. No way you want to apply an eq like that to every speaker being tested as you are no longer testing a speaker as is.

As to believing me or not, you seem to be arguing against basic signal processing and psychoacoustics. So I will leave you be.

 

[ernestcarl]

Your statements about what I was trying to do is completely incorrect. I was not attempting to eliminate all the room modes, or make some flat response out of the combination of room and speaker. I was troubleshooting a problem of a speaker having more bass, not sounding as good as another with similar response but less bass. There was a diagnostic process leading to this from my review:

View attachment 68793

As stated, due to strong resonance at 100 Hz, and reason mentioned above, some of the higher up frequencies were obscured. Pulling down that one tone reduces that ringing and with it, lower amplitude tones at higher frequencies are heard easier.

And no, I did not try to 100% match the resonance in question. As I clearly said, I dialed in a quick correction and it created the right outcome with multiple speakers (tested since) so I stay with it.

With respect to frequencies of 240, 580 Hz, etc. you are listing, you are really wrapped around the axle there. Those frequencies are at or above transition area so you are dealing with combination of the room and or just the speaker. No way you want to apply an eq like that to every speaker being tested as you are no longer testing a speaker as is.

As to believing me or not, you seem to be arguing against basic signal processing and psychoacoustics. So I will leave you be.

I suspect that if you used spatial averaging or MMM (much quicker and easier), those peaks and troughs would likely appear less ominous to the eye.

 

[QMuse]

Your statements about what I was trying to do is completely incorrect. I was not attempting to eliminate all the room modes, or make some flat response out of the combination of room and speaker. I was troubleshooting a problem of a speaker having more bass, not sounding as good as another with similar response but less bass. There was a diagnostic process leading to this from my review:

View attachment 68793

As stated, due to strong resonance at 100 Hz, and reason mentioned above, some of the higher up frequencies were obscured. Pulling down that one tone reduces that ringing and with it, lower amplitude tones at higher frequencies are heard easier.

And no, I did not try to 100% match the resonance in question. As I clearly said, I dialed in a quick correction and it created the right outcome with multiple speakers (tested since) so I stay with it.

With respect to frequencies of 240, 580 Hz, etc. you are listing, you are really wrapped around the axle there. Those frequencies are at or above transition area so you are dealing with combination of the room and or just the speaker. No way you want to apply an eq like that to every speaker being tested as you are no longer testing a speaker as is.

As to believing me or not, you seem to be arguing against basic signal processing and psychoacoustics. So I will leave you be.

You should know better than that, as it's actually very simple: the way you are supposed to listen to the speaker is represented with estimated in-room response curve. As long as your measured in-room response doesn't resemble estimated in-room response you are NOT listening to the speaker as it was designed to be listened. As your in-room response differs very much from estimated in-room response comparing your listening impressions with NFS measurements makes very little sense.

Claiming that you fixed room modes with that single filter also makes no sense at all. Here's again your in-room response with your room EQ filter applied (red) vs estimated in-room response of the Kef R3 based on your NFS measurement (blue). Judging by that graph your filter came nowhere near fixing the in-room response to come even close to estimated in-room response. Anyway I'd say these graphs speak for themselves so no need to talk much about them.

 

[tuga]

I absolutely don't understand why that's a problem.

Ever read Josh Ricci's subwoofer reviews? He led the way in extensive comprehensive testing of subwoofers. But he also included a subjective section to his reviews when he wrote for Audioholics.

What about Tyll Hertensen of Innerfidelity? Well known for his extensive headphone measurements. And each one of his reviews included both subjective evaluations of comfort and the audio quality.

Neither of those reviewers efforts providing measurements were diminished by including their subjective evaluations. If anything, I would encourage Amir to do a little bit more.

The problem is not the subjective listening evaluation per se but the methodology used. Idealy the speaker should be assessed by a panel or at least one trained listener in normal listening condition (in stereo, correctly positioned, inserted in the tester's system, perhaps toy speakers high-passed and augmented by a sub?).

 

[tuga]

The recommendation should reflect the measured performance (what John Atkinson calls "a clean bill of health").

It would make sense to add a subjective rating but the listening assessment as currently performed is not fit for purpose.

 

[rebbiputzmaker]

The placebo problem is strong here. Did you know that you switched to Modi? If you did, placebo would've made the test session inconclusive.

Maybe no bias, maybe just somebody likes the sound better. It is totally bizarre that nobody can accept anyone’s simple preference.

 

[tuga]

Maybe no bias, maybe just somebody likes the sound better. It is totally bizarre that nobody can accept anyone’s simple preference.

Personal preference should not be used as a basis for recommendation.

 

[SimpleTheater]

Maybe no bias, maybe just somebody likes the sound better. It is totally bizarre that nobody can accept anyone’s simple preference.

Based on the testing methodology there is no way to know if he preferred one over the other, or if he could even hear a difference. Maybe he’s correct and can hear a difference, but the testing method is flawed.