I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[tuga]

I think the general idea is not to put speakers everywhere . Look at those multichannel sound bars. Those are all the rage! That is where the development frontier is.

Consumerist rage! That's what got us into this environmental mess...

 

[tuga]

And what makes you think a pair of less neutral speakers will create a better stereophonic illusion than a pair of more neutral speakers?

I will assume that by "neutral" you mean "smooth" response on- and off-axis. Frequency response abberration in particular ranges will produce psychoacoustic effects which may sound nice (e.g. presence dip).
And then there is the issue directivity, which seems to be generating bias/favour in mono testing, whilst being a less accurate transduction of the signal due to increased early-reflection room interaction/interference.

 

[Digital_Thor]

You will like this

Apple Homepod: 4.9
Bowers & Wilkins 803 D3: 4.8

Interesting... I never liked B&W. Too big a midrange crossed too high, overemphasized tweeter, unnecessary expensive cabinets that seems to do less than more simple ones, and a dispersion/power response that never really make their total sound image smooth enough to feel like higher end.
So if the scale goes from 0 - 10, then 4,8 might be about right

 

[Holmz]

I am curious as what you'll do if the speakers you come up with using measurements and the preference score don't match your preference, or, in other words, don't "sound good" to you?

Currently: I listened to some new speakers I liked, and they later were found to score high.
(So basically there is nothing to do here, and they sounded great and measured great… one either buys them or not. So I am.)

Historically: My old speakers scored a bit low, but the compression was good, and I have had them 35 years.
However there were some EQ advice in the review as to the values to make them smoother in FR… which I will try.
But they also sound very good and there is no cost associated with keeping them.

Basically the preference score is a tool.
(IMO) If the speakers do not sound good, or the preference is low, then it needs to be investigated as to whether it is the person or the preference which is lacking.

Which speakers are you using @tuga ?
We can then see if they have been measured, and compare how they sound to you versus the measurements and preference scores.

 

[voodooless]

Consumerist rage! That's what got us into this environmental mess...

Of course! All this research is about better selling speakers, not better speakers

 

[Holmz]

They give us a sense of the listening room, but we are trying to listen to the recording (or recorded space/spatial effect), so they are indeed distortion (reflections overlaid on the recording).
…

I suppose we can agree to disagree…
If I am talking on the phone my family and friends will say, “did you go into the kitchen?”
Or “did you just go into the bathroom?”
Or “You are back in the living room again aren’t you?”

The reflections tell us about the room. You can claim reflections are distortions, but the distortions are not reflections, and our hearing has evolved to let us work this out. Or, if you want to believe that God created us this way, that is fine too.
But all the powers of heaven do make reflections the same as distortions.

If I am not not correct, then I hope someone will provide some proof to correct my understanding.

 

[abdo123]

They give us a sense of the listening room, but we are trying to listen to the recording (or recorded space/spatial effect), so they are indeed distortion (reflections overlaid on the recording).

That's a superficial opinion and conclusion, only the reflections that arrive very early (within 5 to 30ms after direct sound) effect tonality, a concert hall would not have such distortions, not all reflections are bad.

 

[tuga]

That's a superficial opinion and conclusion, only the reflections that arrive very early (within 5 to 30ms after direct sound) effect tonality, a concert hall would not have such distortions, not all reflections are bad.

I know that, but we are discussing domestic reproduction of recorded music not live unamplified sound in large dedicated spaces.

 

[tuga]

I suppose we can agree to disagree…
If I am talking on the phone my family and friends will say, “did you go into the kitchen?”
Or “did you just go into the bathroom?”
Or “You are back in the living room again aren’t you?”

The reflections tell us about the room. You can claim reflections are distortions, but the distortions are not reflections, and our hearing has evolved to let us work this out. Or, if you want to believe that God created us this way, that is fine too.
But all the powers of heaven do make reflections the same as distortions.

If I am not not correct, then I hope someone will provide some proof to correct my understanding.

Think of the effect of early-reflections as watching a film in a room full of mirrors and you will understand what I mean.
I find that part confusing in Toole's book, it seems to conflate reflections in live sound (used for source location and characterisation of spatial qualities) with reflections (which overlay onto the recorded acoustics or spatial qualities and create confusion).

 

[tuga]

 

[tuga]

Which speakers are you using @tuga ?
We can then see if they have been measured, and compare how they sound to you versus the measurements and preference scores.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/stirling-broadcast-bbc-ls36-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[Sancus]

@Sean Olive It is so refreshing to hear someone with your credentials say that Stereo is outdated and irrelevant today.

Sometimes Stereo really seems like the hill this industry wants to die on, with all its faults.

Dr. Toole has said this as well both in his book and on this very forum, many times in fact: "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

This is frequently skipped when discussing his work. I think what it boils down to is convenience. Building a multi-channel setup is *less convenient* than a stereo setup. You have to figure out where to put several more speakers, etc.

The part that bugs me is that the stereo-fixated folks rarely state that what they're looking for is primarily convenience. They still consider a stereo system to be an uncompromised audio system and pretend that you can reach the best experience possible using current technology with stereo speakers. But you can't. That's a fact that is as strongly proven as research can show, a fact that you cannot escape no matter how eloquently you wax about stereophonic soundstages and music and emotions.

The stereo experience is inferior to multi-channel in every way.

I used to be one of the folks who thought that music was just about stereo and home theatre was the only use for multi-channel. Then I experienced well-recorded multi-channel music(2L recordings) on a decent system, and I was blown away. This was like nothing I had ever heard, on any stereo system, no matter how many hundreds of thousands had been spent on it. And all that at a fraction of the price of a pair of Magicos or whatever "truly high-end" speakers. So what's the point of trying to optimize for the last percentage point of the stereo experience? I do think stereo has its place. Not everybody wants to fit a multi-channel system in their living room. And that's totally fine! I rely on stereo for several secondary systems.

The second argument is always that there's not enough content. I think upmixing covers this well enough to still beat stereo, but others disagree. That's fine; there are thousands of multi-channel classical and jazz albums and even the mediocre ones are better than nearly all stereo albums. If you're not a fan of those genres, it's true there's not much out there... yet. But the Atmos music production engine has begun and it is churning out material to the point that I've spoken to a talent manager at Universal who said they were basically recommending Atmos mixing to practically all of their bands and musicians for new albums. My favourite composer is remixing *all* of his albums in Atmos this year. Yes, I am excited

Is multi-channel really a goal for many in the US? In the UK, and Europe in general I suppose, sitting rooms are too small for 5.1, let alone immersive audio. Not to mention that a room will look like a low-budget sci-fi set, unless you are fortunate enough to own a dedicated room, again unlikely in Europe...

Honestly, I don't think it would be hard to make the case that Home Theatre is a bigger market in North America nowadays than stereo hi-fi. The stereo hi-fi shop is a dying phenomenon. I only know of one in my entire major city, the rest all rely on home theatre offerings and demos to some extent or another. Even the one I'm thinking of has started selling home theatre gear in recent years...

Also, it's very important to understand that you can effectively duplicate multi-channel using headphones alone. It's computationally difficult and requires head tracking, but the Smyth Realiser has proven that it can be done convincingly. There are other approaches as well, but this is fundamentally a computer/software challenge. So it's mostly a matter of making it accessible in products that the average person can buy. Apple is very clearly working on this, and I'm sure others are as well. There is big money involved in this, much more than the limited HT or Hi-Fi markets.

That's why so much music is being remixed in Atmos. Once the headphone piece is well-understood, folks will be able to enjoy multi-channel music on their headphones including the changes in sound that are created by small head movements which are really what make things very convincing. At that point, it may well be that large speaker systems will only be important in places where several people want to enjoy the material together. I'm looking forward to it, even if it obsoletes my Genelec surround system to some extent

 

[tuga]

Dr. Toole has said this as well both in his book and on this very forum, many times in fact: "What is needed to deliver a more credible sound field to listeners is a multichannel system. All else is compromise, especially two-channel stereo - so we play around attempting to extract from a directionally and spatially deprived system some sense of realism."

This is, of course, his opinion. And preference. No Science in that.

 

[Sancus]

Interesting... I never liked B&W.

I recently got a chance to hear the B&W 802 D3 in use at a recording studio. It... really wasn't very impressive. They're... not that terrible, but certainly not notable or special in any way at least based on my useless anecdata

 

[Sancus]

This is, of course, his opinion. And preference. No Science in that.

There are entire chapters of the book devoted to explaining, with many quoted studies and measurements, why stereo is inherently flawed. So, believe it's opinion if you want, that's up to you. But it's not the reality, sorry. Claiming things are opinion doesn't protect you from reality.

 

[tuga]

There are entire chapters of the book devoted to explaining, with many quoted studies and measurements, why stereo is inherently flawed. So, believe it's opinion if you want, that's up to you. But it's not the reality, sorry. Claiming things are opinion doesn't protect you from reality.

Stereo is inherently flawed, 2- or multi-channel.

I see too much credo around here, and not enough critical reading...

 

[tuga]

I recently got a chance to hear the B&W 802 D3 in use at a recording studio. It... really wasn't very impressive. They're... not that terrible, but certainly not notable or special in any way at least based on my useless anecdata

This was a blind test, correct? You being biased and all that...

 

[Frgirard]

There are entire chapters of the book devoted to explaining, with many quoted studies and measurements, why stereo is inherently flawed. So, believe it's opinion if you want, that's up to you. But it's not the reality, sorry. Claiming things are opinion doesn't protect you from reality.

gazlighting detected.
A measure without interpretation is nothing.
Interpretation without mathematics or at least statistics is an opinion.

 

[tuga]

This is frequently skipped when discussing his work. I think what it boils down to is convenience. Building a multi-channel setup is *less convenient* than a stereo setup. You have to figure out where to put several more speakers, etc.

The part that bugs me is that the stereo-fixated folks rarely state that what they're looking for is primarily convenience. They still consider a stereo system to be an uncompromised audio system and pretend that you can reach the best experience possible using current technology with stereo speakers. But you can't. That's a fact that is as strongly proven as research can show, a fact that you cannot escape no matter how eloquently you wax about stereophonic soundstages and music and emotions.

The stereo experience is inferior to multi-channel in every way.

I don't disagree with your opinion.
I would add cost to inconvenience, or price/performance.

Also I do not consider upmixing as a better alternative or improvement over stereo (maybe because I listen to mainly Classical music).

 

[dominikz]

How does that change as you add more and more sound absorption treatments? Ultimately, in a hypothetical perfect anechoic chamber it would make no difference. The question I have is how close do you have to get to an anechoic chamber to fool your brain?

Are you saying that direct vs indirect sound ratio is the next best predictor of speaker preference after frequency response? The original claim by Sean Olive was: "Frequency response is the single most important predictor of sound quality." Surely Dirac can make speakers close to equal in terms of frequency response? Perhaps if Dirac was applied in an anechoic chamber? It could even emphasize perceptual effects of differences in reflected sound?

Because any reflections are in fact noise. Whether we like the sound of reflections or not, they will always (perhaps insignificantly) mask the original recording. In my limited experience, adding absorption removes the fog reflections introduce when, for example, recreating the ambiance of the original recording. Certainly, adding more and more absorption has kept improving the clarity of reproduction in my experience. And I have never craved for reflected sound when listening through a good pair of headphones.

All speakers are pretty much omni-directional below, say, 500Hz (equivalent reflections) and it does not take impossible absorption to do a very effective job above ~500Hz (or evan much lower frequencies), significantly removing the effect of reflections. I would also argue that rooms with a lot of absorption are the natural ones, and the typical "living room"-like listening rooms are the opposite of what you called dark. It is all about what you define as the reference.
Having tried both, I do not have any doubt as to where my preferences lie. It also makes speaker selection much easier, as you can remove the need for a particular frequency response (with Dirac, etc.) or directivity characteristic.
Just my personal preference for achieving high fidelity reproduction I enjoy

But to get back on topic, the value of perceptual experiments as done in the past, when comparing various speakers, as I have said in previous messages, are of dubious value for ranking the "quality" of loudspeakers. All I am trying to do is to propose changes which might remove some of my objections. And hoping that somebody will come with more and better changes.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding to think that removing all reflections from the listening room results in 'more fidelity' in reproduction. It is a very understandable and seemingly logical conclusion - of course, but it doesn't seem to hold true with human listeners.

It seems that some reflections from the listening room are in fact required to make the stereo illusion stable - without them in-head localization may occur and sense of envelopment may be lost. May I refer to my previous post from a different thread:

The above approach may seem intuitive, but there also seems to be evidence that removing the loudspeaker-room interaction (extreme case: listening in an anechoic chamber) can break externalization - i.e. cause in-head localization of phantom sources (similar as with headphones). An interesting note on this can be found in Toole's "Sound Reproduction" 3rd Ed, chapter 7.4.2, page 182.
So it appears that some level of room reinforcement/reflections is actually required with most loudspeaker reproduction schemes to facilitate something resembling a realistic (albeit phantom) sound source image.
In addition, (some) reflections can improve the sense of envelopment, image width and even dialogue intelligibility and tonality (e.g. see the famous ~2kHz stereo dip).
My point is that completely removing room influence on loudspeaker reproduction may not always bring us closer to hearing the recording 'as intended', and that there really is a bit of ambiguity on what constitutes 'neutral' and 'realistic' when speaking about spatiality and imaging in stereo (and even multichannel) sound reproduction. Since most sound reproduction systems don't try to recreate the full 3D soundfield around the listener I'm not sure that this ambiguity can really be avoided. Consequently, there may always be some leeway for preference when speaking about loudspeaker directivity and room treatment vs spatiality/imaging/envelopment.
Anyway, just my 2c

EDIT: This is of course related to part of the spectrum above the transition frequency. Below the transition frequency there is usually a need to tame room effect (via treatment and/or EQ) as they cause severe resonances and nulls that are usually audibly detrimental.

I can also speak from personal experience that spending time in an anechoic chamber is not pleasant - I would not wish to relax and listen to music there.

We should also not forget that stereo is an illusion, and not a reproduction of any original soundfield. In addition, unlike electronics, loudspeakers have the dispersion component, and obviously 3D output cannot anyway be made the same as the 1D electrical input signal, so the argument of 'keeping true to the signal' is somewhat moot - especially considering that some listening room reflections appear to be desirable for soundstage externalization (see above).
IMHO we should instead aim for characteristics that make the stereo illusion stable and pleasing, while not being detrimental to tonality of the recording - which based on research seems to be loudspeakers with flat on-axis, and even off-axis behaviour used in normally furnished living rooms; resulting in early reflections that are similar in spectrum to direct sound.

No doubt, but irrelevant. My hypothetical example was a speaker that scores very well by Harman criteria in mono, perhaps by virtue of cabinet sounds compensating for peaks and dips. Such errors aren't distinguishable from driver output in mono measurements, and will result in a good score in mono, but a poor stereo performance. There were dozens of such speakers in the old days, and there probably still are. Pleasant in mono, not so much in stereo.

To my understanding, any resonant peaks that may fill-in on-axis dips (to make the on-axis FR nicer-looking) would still show-up as peaks off-axis - i.e. they would still be visible from the spinorama in the end. So I'm not sure if this hypothetical case equates to a real concern.

Also, can you clarify why you believe these spectral errors would not be audible in mono but would become audible in stereo? Research seems to suggest that such spectral aberrations are much more easily audible in mono vs stereo.
Note that listening in mono does not mean listening anechoically - i.e. the listener still hears the coloured off-axis sound that such a loudspeaker would produce from reflections - even if on-axis is flat - so these kinds of issues should be audible in mono, or not at all.

Otherwise any poorly designed loudspeaker could be EQ-ed to a flat on-axis and sound great - this is IME most definitely not the case. Good directivity behaviour is needed for this to be feasible.