Marching Onward re: distortion

[leeroy 85032]

]


I don't think deliberate but I do see inconsistencies.

That comment is meant as constructive criticism.

i'll give it that..

 

[beagleman]

Aaahhh you can't bring individual preference into this. You especially shouldn't be accounting for hearing loss.

The testing here is fundamentally in line with technical measures and Toole research where to simply paraphrase a speaker that has a flat on axis response and smooth off axis response will be preferred by the vast majority.

If you bring individual preference into this then anything goes, anything is good because someone somewhere likes it.

How would hearing loss be accounted for then? 20 people will all hear somewhat differently.

I get flat response will be preferred, but are they only using people with great hearing or a wide range of subjects and ages?

I did not say "anything goes" but I have found real life people I know, that do know good sound, all seem to vary a bit, like maybe plus or minus one decibel in the treble range. Meaning there is not an exact preference, but a small range.

 

[richard12511]

How would hearing loss be accounted for then? 20 people will all hear somewhat differently.

I get flat response will be preferred, but are they only using people with great hearing or a wide range of subjects and ages?

I did not say "anything goes" but I have found real life people I know, that do know good sound, all seem to vary a bit, like maybe plus or minus one decibel in the treble range. Meaning there is not an exact preference, but a small range.

The key is that people hear everything in life with that same hearing loss, so a neutral speaker will still be what sounds most natural to them, hearing loss or not.

 

[amirm]

Ignoring the (probably deliberate to enhance the impression of bass) peak at 100Hz the bass extension is extremely limited, F3 about 80Hz and F6 about 60Hz.

What are you doing? You can't read F3/F6 using an in-room measurement with room modes and such. You need to use the anechoic/spin data. If you did, F3=55 Hz and F6=48 Hz. Response is actually flat to 77 Hz.

 

[amirm]

Thing is its not a 3dB increase at 5 kHz, its a 3dB increase from 5kHz to 20 kHz. That has a big impact on the sound.

I just can't reconcile the measured response and subjective comments.

You can't? Why? I showed the EQ that eliminated that 3 dB shelving. Therefore it was not a factor in listening tests.

If you are serious about sound reproduction but are not using equalization, then I don't know what to tell you. OK, I will say that you will never have good sound, period.

 

[amirm]

Equalising the response of a speaker that has good off axis response is perfectly valid and useful. However you need accurate measurement data to base the correction on.

No one at home has this. So unless you are using one of the specific speakers tested here you can't do this.

Not at all. The correction is based on anechoic data (either on-axis or PIR) that I have provided. With rare exceptions, correction based on these methods hugely improves many speakers. Indeed such correction is built into DSP speakers and that is how they get ruler flat response like this:

You just can't get this kind of response without EQ. And if EQ works inside the speaker, it works just as well outside (i.e. in host software).

Room measurements is a must and will need to be applied to bass frequencies. Indeed most of the time I apply one mode correction in my EQ or many speakers sound boomy in my room.

 

[richard12511]

Not at all. The correction is based on anechoic data (either on-axis or PIR) that I have provided. With rare exceptions, correction based on these methods hugely improves many speakers. Indeed such correction is built into DSP speakers and that is how they get ruler flat response like this:

You just can't get this kind of response without EQ. And if EQ works inside the speaker, it works just as well outside (i.e. in host software).

Room measurements is a must and will need to be applied to bass frequencies. Indeed most of the time I apply one mode correction in my EQ or many speakers sound boomy in my room.

I’m a little confused by this response. You seem to be disagreeing with @March Audio , but then you go on to emphasize the point he was making. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

I think his point was that it’s unfair to judge a speaker by how well it fares post EQ, as that EQ is dependent on access to anechoic data that is unavailable to end users(unless you’ve measured it). I think it’s a good point, though I also agree with you that it’s important to highlight speakers that take well to EQ(as you’ve done).

 

[daftcombo]

I think his point was that it’s unfair to judge a speaker by how well it fares post EQ, as that EQ is dependent on access to anechoic data that is unavailable to end users(unless you’ve measured it). I think it’s a good point, though I also agree with you that it’s important to highlight speakers that take well to EQ(as you’ve done).

Since all measured speakers come with anechoic data (by definition of what is a "measured speaker"), I don't see where the problem is. Either you can EQ it thanks to the measurements, or you can't if directivity errors don't allow it.

 

[flipflop]

Either you can EQ it thanks to the measurements, or you can't if directivity errors don't allow it.

EQ is still beneficial even if the directivity is poor.

 

[amirm]

I’m a little confused by this response. You seem to be disagreeing with @March Audio , but then you go on to emphasize the point he was making. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point.

I think his point was that it’s unfair to judge a speaker by how well it fares post EQ, as that EQ is dependent on access to anechoic data that is unavailable to end users(unless you’ve measured it). I think it’s a good point, though I also agree with you that it’s important to highlight speakers that take well to EQ(as you’ve done).

He said "no one at home has this [accurate measurement data]. " That accurate measurement is precisely what I provide in my reviews so the point that people don't have access to it makes no sense in context of a review I do.

In this case the EQ is darn trivial to boot. It is not like I applied 20 filters to correct its response. One shelving and it was done. You can also listen more off-axis to get similar effect.

 

[Colonel7]

My points have been completely reasonable and reasonably presented. I suggest you go back to the original posts where I made the points. Linked below for your reference.

It wasnt my escalation. The number of likes I have received in the thread also shows I am not alone in my opinion.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...m-t5v-review-studio-monitor.18122/post-589576
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...m-t5v-review-studio-monitor.18122/post-589761


Are Amirs opinions and methods beyond question or criticism?

I have been concerned by the speaker tests for a long time. I am certainly not the first to voice concerns. I have previously refrained from commenting but this morning when I saw the comment “nicely controlled bass distortion” I laughed out loud and had to say something. I did so very gently, see above. The bass distortion is at 10% at 96dB which is by any measure starting to be audible. Its not nicely controlled at all, its at the ragged edge. 1dB more on the volume control and the woofer will probably start farting like its got a dose of gastro.

I do very litle marketing and contribute widely in most areas, so lets not go there.

I think the fact that you decide to make these sorts of comments in the open forum which is as obnoxious instead of to me privately in a PM and speaks volumes.

Dont blame me for Amirs inability to accept different POVs or criticism. The humility cuts both ways. You may also be surprised to find that I have been contacted by a number of people saying that he has behave unreasonably over the past few weeks.

Please take a step back and think about this. You've made your points ad nauseam and again blown up another thread with a soccer panther from another manufacturer's product. Time for a cup of tea; your points were made long ago.

 

[March Audio]

Please take a step back and think about this. You've made your points ad nauseam and again blown up another thread with a soccer panther from another manufacturer's product. Time for a cup of tea; your points were made long ago.

It wasnt my escalation. Amir argued all the way so dont lay it at my door.

If you think a review comment about 10% distortion being "nicely controlled" doesnt deserve some questioning then this is really not a science based forum.

8000 words. Were you counting Amir's profligate postings? Cut to the essence.

Disagreeing with Amir tends towards exchanges with lots of words unless bowing to 'authority' shortens the exchange, as usually happens.

Are posting site owners/officials any less 'vested' than other contributors?

This.

 

[Shorty]

Please take a step back and think about this. You've made your points ad nauseam and again blown up another thread with a soccer panther from another manufacturer's product. Time for a cup of tea; your points were made long ago.

IMHO Alan made some valid criticism and was subsequently attacked by Amir - and not for the first time. I think it therefore rather unfair to solely blame Alan for ‘blowing up another thread’.
I do however agree with the principle that a manufacturer should not comment on someone else‘s product, even if this product is not in direct competition with one’s own.

 

[BYRTT]

.....If you think a review comment about 10% distortion being "nicely controlled" doesnt deserve some questioning then this is really not a science based forum.....

technical about distortion numbers T5V is really a tiny little monitor using poor area 5 inch woofer diameter, cant we imagine its in that relation distortion number is review commented especial because those small sizes normal have to move so hard and for this one into listening session it surprised sound over avarage good in that 5 inch diameter relation.

 

[Shazb0t]

@March Audio should not be threatened with retaliation by @amirm or @BDWoody for the posts made in this thread. Even if you don't agree with his points they were presented in a courteous manner. The same can not be said of all of the responses. Maybe there is behind the scenes information to provide context but, from an outside viewer who read the entire thread, the response does appear to be out of line. It makes us appear to be no better than some other forums.

 

[Robin L]

It wasnt my escalation. Amir argued all the way so dont lay it at my door.

If you think a review comment about 10% distortion being "nicely controlled" doesnt deserve some questioning then this is really not a science based forum.



This.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Is a $3500~4000 passive speaker really competing with these $400 a pair Adams? Though I do find his tone a bit harsh, too much implications of bad faith put on Amir to be seen as purely dialectic.

Yes, yes it Very much is a competator. Or at least eq/DSP is.
You see ?
The writing on the wall?
I am excited to see the March Audio speaker and still appreciate passive design but DSP/PEQ is a direct comparator to any speaker *Especially* a higher end speaker.

I'd love to see the new Burchart A500 as well. It to me represents where the technology can start going. Multiple tunings, room correction, reasonable price (vs something like the KII) because with DSP you don't require state of the art drive units.

 

[ahofer]

IMHO Alan made some valid criticism and was subsequently attacked by Amir - and not for the first time. I think it therefore rather unfair to solely blame Alan for ‘blowing up another thread’.
I do however agree with the principle that a manufacturer should not comment on someone else‘s product, even if this product is not in direct competition with one’s own.

That was kind of how I saw it as well, although I have to say the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot - Alan thinks speakers should be rated on an absolute scale without EQ, and Amir..well, I’m not exactly sure where he stands on pre- and post-EQ, but he is emphasizing value for money and assuming widespread availability of simple EQ tools. Are we there yet..? My kids are sort of into audio (my eldest just invested in Genelecs and my middle guy has KEFs), but aren’t ready to buy Roon.

I’ve benefited from the expertise of both and sort of hate to see them going at it. Alan is one of the few vendors who doesn’t preach pure nonsense to move product, and his products are pretty reasonably priced. If you think Alan is anti-EQ, you should go over to the Harbeth Forum and find his description of setting up an exhibit room.

Full disclosure, I have one of his amps, but I am running EQ in Roon and my (RME) DAC before the signal gets there. I will say that my experiments with room EQ so far have not been life-changing.

 

[BYRTT]

.....It makes us appear to be no better than some other forums.

Why not better, then please read that goldmine of research objective data and jump over the listening test if its a problem Amir can't do 100% right blind listening sessions each second or third day and still have a life, that said it sometimes sound like some persons want acoustic objective curves to be cut out be >100% predictable transfererable how sound is really percieved into real life, that is not the case real world and myself is happy Amir doesnt lie himself into each review to get anechoic spinorama and score data match his opinion of whatever percieved acoustics.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I feel that Alan's comments and intentions seem to have been misconstrued here. The confrontational tone of the discussion certainly hasn't helped, although IMO Alan is not alone there.

Most importantly, I believe he honestly does not see this speaker as a competitor to his own. So I don't think his comments in this thread were designed to bash a competitor, and I don't think it's fair to characterise them as such.

Having said that, @March Audio, although I sympathise with your position in this case (and personally I don't believe there should be subjective commentaries mixed up with objective data on ASR at all), I think trying to criticise someone's approach to arriving at their own sighted subjective opinion is always going to be fraught, and is best avoided (if for no other reason than pragmatism).

As others have said, the objective data @amirm produces are invaluable and unrivalled. If reading someone’s sighted subjective opinions is the cost of admission to those objective data, it’s one I’m willing to pay (and it helps that the someone in question is an experienced listener with a generally healthy understanding of what they can and can't expect of their ears).

Anyway, for my 2c, in an ideal world ASR would not venture into sighted subjective opinions in the first place. These threads get swamped by discussions of Amir's sighted listening impressions, which are (by miles) the weakest data point presented in the reviews! I'd really prefer this were avoided, but you can't have everything...