Perlisten speakers

[Matias]

Do we have measurements of that model? Would be nice to compare.

There is this one here:

Dynaudio Confidence 30 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Dynaudio Confidence 30's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for the nearfield responses. I measured the speaker's impedance with Dayton Audio's DATS v2 system.

www.stereophile.com

Dynaudio Confidence 30

 

[bo_knows]

Do we have measurements of that model? Would be nice to compare.

Not much.

Dynaudio Confidence 50 Review

Leap for Joy – Never before has there been a Dynaudio quite like this. True, they have always been a pleasure to listen to – but the new Confidence 50 seriously challenges our past benchmarks.

stereo-magazine.com

 

[pozz]

There is this one here:

Dynaudio Confidence 30 loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the Dynaudio Confidence 30's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 mike for the nearfield responses. I measured the speaker's impedance with Dayton Audio's DATS v2 system.

www.stereophile.com

Dynaudio Confidence 30

Hard to tell from the +/-15 degrees. Definite but shallow dip starting around 3kHz.

Better than what we see in other speakers.

 

[pozz]

So I need clarification or just additional insights here (for the stereo listener). In home theater you have discrete overhead speakers that would not take kindly to bed level speaker cancellations/interference from the ceiling bounce, but for 2 channel stereo listening, do ceiling bounces offer a vertical soundstage in the same way that first reflections provide a wider horizontal soundstage (which is what Dr. Toole prefers)?

Vertical reflections have some effect on imaging (not "soundstage"), in terms of broadening it. The main effect is on timbre, particularly if there is some difference in the spectral content of the reflection.

These effects are less pronounced because there is no vertical stereophony in terms of time and intensity. It's mostly based on spectrum, from cancellations caused by the position of the head, shoulders and torso (and knees, etc., if you're sitting). And then localization accuracy is mostly achieved by head movement.

It's a somewhat nebulous area, though, in terms of what's good and what's bad. That's probably because the recent research is not specifically about loudspeaker design.

Here's a recent thesis with two preference based experiments on the topic: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74211806.pdf @youngho

Another good researcher here is Hyunkook Lee, but his work is behind a paywall.

Edit: With two channel audio, given the precedence effect, everything will be a modification of the direct sound. I've never experienced constant narrow vertical directivity; rather the kind of mess that's to be expected with conventional designs. Maybe the closest would be horns, but the examples I've heard do not have well controlled directivity. All in all I hate hearing variation with head movement.

Perhaps the case here, with Perlisten speakers, is that that variation is not objectionable. It could be compared to deliberate floor and ceiling absorption with nothing on the walls, which I've never done. Getting more direct sound is very perceptable, though, and could be the main reason, along with nice on and off axis response, that these sound so good.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Looking forward to reading. You preferred this over your Studio2s?

You can follow the links at Perlisten to read it. The answer to your question is complicated.

 

[JRS]

I have read that too. Imagining an evolutionary inheritance there is lazy thinking, surely. The savannah wasn't hard, flat or reflective. We've lived with flat reflective floors for what, a couple hundred years? Far too recent to have an evolutionary influence.

You are right, I should have considered that vertical alacrity in location is likely important given the predators that might be present, say in trees. But I suspect the floor bounce has nothing to do with floors, but the ground which has been here for considerably longer that we have. That we have become adept at using it in modern environments has nothing to do with evolution obviously, more a matter of using a preexisting design efficiently. Looking at modern primates, the primary features seem consistent across say the chimp, gorilla, and bonobo. The orangutan, however has some serious funneling going on.

.

 

[richard12511]

Awhile back, I tested absorbing the first reflection floor bounce(6.5" GIK Panel) vs not absorbing it. In terms of measured performance, absorbing the floor bounce was better, and it solved the problem I was trying to solve(a null in the response). In terms of audible performance, leaving the reflection intact sounded surprisingly better. Both myself and a friend were quite surprised. Maybe important to mention that the test was performed with a Genelec 8351b, which has about as perfect a floor bounce as it gets. Maybe a different speaker(with more tweeter/mid lobing) would give different results?

In Erin's interview of Dr. Floyd Toole, Floyd mentions a similar study to the one I did, but with more participants. In that study, listeners also preferred leaving the floor reflection intact. I not aware of any such preference tests for the ceiling bounce, however.

 

[pozz]

You are right, I should have considered that vertical alacrity in location is likely important given the predators that might be present, say in trees. But I suspect the floor bounce has nothing to do with floors, but the ground which has been here for considerably longer that we have. That we have become adept at using it in modern environments has nothing to do with evolution obviously, more a matter of using a preexisting design efficiently. Looking at modern primates, the primary features seem consistent across say the chimp, gorilla, and bonobo. The orangutan, however has some serious funneling going on. View attachment 164816
.

The main thing with reflections from the ground and floor is that they are consistent, regardless of their absorption/scattering characteristics. There is limited movement related sound coming from below, in our perceptual field, compared to directly in front of us, and if there is we look down to localize, engaging the normal hearing mechanisms.

 

[Jdunk54nl]

(The Audioholics plot you posted is for horizontal response.) I think the main thing to note is that the vertical directivity is very controlled in Perlisten speakers. Nearly the whole of the range consistently down vs. dips, lobing and beaming with more conventional speakers.

That is weird, when you enlarge the image on the audioholics site for vertical, it gives you the horizontal. A link must be broken or something. I copied the best image I could and edited the above.

 

[BenB]

I believe the issue of vertical reflections is a bit more complicated than a simple preference for or against.

According to research, the primary impact of vertical reflections is a shift in timbre (or perceived spectral balance). For many speakers, this is a welcome shift. For speakers that are already a bit dark, this may be an unwelcome shift.

However the reflection is not the same as EQ, which is the most direct way of affecting spectral balance. The reflections add a delayed and darkened version of the sound to the original, as they have been modified by the frequency-dependent reflection coefficients of the floor and ceiling. Trying to absorb the reflection will typically only be effective at high frequencies, and can lead to a greater shift in balance than leaving it alone, depending on the thickness and characteristics of the treatment.

This gives us a situation in which preference rankings for typical listeners may very well follow this ranking:

1) Vertical reflections reduced & Desired balance achieved with EQ (or voicing of the speaker)
2) Vertical reflections in tact & No EQ
3) Vertical reflections reduced & No EQ (or sub-optimal voicing of the speaker)

To put it another way, it may be that people don't like having a delayed version of the original sound added in soon after the original (especially when this reflection comes from a similar azimuthal angle as the speakers and doesn't reduce inter-aural cross-correlation like sidewall reflections do), but their preference for the timbral shift is so strong that it makes the reflection a net positive. Thus the ideal presentation may require mitigating the vertical reflections, and using EQ/voicing to obtain the spectral balance that people prefer. Then you sort of get to have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[richard12511]

I believe the issue of vertical reflections is a bit more complicated than a simple preference for or against.

According to research, the primary impact of vertical reflections is a shift in timbre (or perceived spectral balance). For many speakers, this is a welcome shift. For speakers that are already a bit dark, this may be an unwelcome shift.

However the reflection is not the same as EQ, which is the most direct way of affecting spectral balance. The reflections add a delayed and darkened version of the sound to the original, as they have been modified by the frequency-dependent reflection coefficients of the floor and ceiling. Trying to absorb the reflection will typically only be effective at high frequencies, and can lead to a greater shift in balance than leaving it alone, depending on the thickness and characteristics of the treatment.

This gives us a situation in which preference rankings for typical listeners may very well follow this ranking:

1) Vertical reflections reduced & Desired balance achieved with EQ (or voicing of the speaker)
2) Vertical reflections in tact & No EQ
3) Vertical reflections reduced & No EQ (or sub-optimal voicing of the speaker)

To put it another way, it may be that people don't like having a delayed version of the original sound added in soon after the original (especially when this reflection comes from a similar azimuthal angle as the speakers and doesn't reduce inter-aural cross-correlation like sidewall reflections do), but their preference for the timbral shift is so strong that it makes the reflection a net positive. Thus the ideal presentation may require mitigating the vertical reflections, and using EQ/voicing to obtain the spectral balance that people prefer. Then you sort of get to have your cake and eat it, too.

FWIW, I don't remember it being the tonality shift that bothered about the sound with floor absorption. If my memory holds, it was the way it altered the imaging that I disliked(though I suppose that could be tonality related). I never tried post absorption EQ, but maybe that's something I can do next time. IIRC, the steady state(MMM) response was almost identical, with the only difference being that the sans absorption measurement had an extra null in the 200-300?Hz range.

 

[Spocko]

I have read that too. Imagining an evolutionary inheritance there is lazy thinking, surely. The savannah wasn't hard, flat or reflective. We've lived with flat reflective floors for what, a couple hundred years? Far too recent to have an evolutionary influence.

I do remember specifically from a recent YouTube video with either Olive or Geddes that when one removed/absorbed all floor reflections, the sound was unnatural and not preferred; however, there was no listener preference regarding ceiling reflections.

Edit: correction it was Dr. Toole on Erin's interview!

 

[Inner Space]

I do remember specifically from a recent YouTube video with either Olive or Geddes that when one removed/absorbed all floor reflections, the sound was unnatural and not preferred; however, there was no listener preference when removing ceiling reflections.

Yes, I can't dispute the preference findings - just the imaginary reason invented for it.

 

[jhaider]

This is interesting discussion on the narrow vertical stuff and praise of how narrow and well controlled it is.
It is one of the biggest criticisms of the @Dennis Murphy and his Philharmonic BMR stuff and other RAAL tweeter speakers. Yet here it is praised.

If you’re referring to my comments, understand the context: change in tonality when going from seated to standing, and generally dull tonality when standing. Based on measurements the same critique likely applies to these speakers.

I’m not sure any of the published reviews of these speakers have discussed anything but listening while seated. For many, tonality while standing seems to be a non-issue. Even aside from narrow vertical directivity, consider how low the typical “hifi” speaker stand is. Even when seated in a relatively low chair, a moderately tall listener will have a seated ear height of >40”. When he stands it might be 65”-70”. Yet many people use 2 foot speaker stands with small monitors, with the speakers’ design axis maybe 3’ from the floor! That will also sound dull when standing.

 

[hardisj]

I do remember specifically from a recent YouTube video with either Olive or Geddes that when one removed/absorbed all floor reflections, the sound was unnatural and not preferred; however, there was no listener preference regarding ceiling reflections.

That was in my chat with Floyd. I believe it was somewhere near the end.
(side note: if someone wants to watch the whole thing through and give me time stamps, I and the rest of the community would love you forever)

 

[Spocko]

That was in my chat with Floyd. I believe it was somewhere near the end.
(side note: if someone wants to watch the whole thing through and give me time stamps, I and the rest of the community would love you forever)

YES, I did remember it was your video, but forgot the interviewee!

 

[MarcT]

Stereophile review of S7t tower just posted. As I read the review, it seems that this speaker is pretty persnickety with regard to positioning, which rules it out for my family room system because I can only really place the speakers pretty much in one spot. Narrow vertical dispersion, if I understand correctly. Thoughts on the review?

Perlisten S7t loudspeaker

I received an email from a longtime press representative I've known for years, telling me about a new loudspeaker company he's representing. The company is bursting from the gates with a line of products that includes floorstanders, standmounts, wallmounts, surrounds, center channels, and a...

www.stereophile.com

 

[BenB]

Stereophile review of S7t tower just posted. As I read the review, it seems that this speaker is pretty persnickety with regard to positioning, which rules it out for my family room system because I can only really place the speakers pretty much in one spot. Narrow vertical dispersion, if I understand correctly. Thoughts on the review?

Perlisten S7t loudspeaker

I received an email from a longtime press representative I've known for years, telling me about a new loudspeaker company he's representing. The company is bursting from the gates with a line of products that includes floorstanders, standmounts, wallmounts, surrounds, center channels, and a...

www.stereophile.com

It's interesting that they mentioned the low height of the tweeter, which largely determines the height of the soundstage. That was very problematic for me when I heard them at CAF.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

It's interesting that they mentioned the low height of the tweeter, which largely determines the height of the soundstage.

It is also interesting that Perlisten argues that they have adjusted for that by the vertical angle of the HF array.

 

[BenB]

It is also interesting that Perlisten argues that they have adjusted for that by the vertical angle of the HF array.

There's no argument. There are 2 unrelated issues at play. One is whether or not the listening axis passes through the listening position. The user can tilt the speaker to ensure that happens. The other is the perceptual localization of the soundstage. The S7T soundstage is centered with their tweeter 32" off the ground, and short of putting the speaker on a stand, nothing is going to change that.