PS Audio sent Erin their speaker??!!

[mj30250]

If your concern is measurements and only measurements, it should be easy to ignore the subjective commentary of the likes of Erin and Amir and simply review the data that each provides. In that case, unless you are actually questioning the validity of their data, where's the need for debate?

In speaking only for myself, I find the subjective impressions to be of at least some interest and value in the case of Erin and Amir specifically, because they've both taken steps to earn a fair amount of trust through their (seemingly honest) attempts at correlating their own opinions with their objective data, and they have both amassed a large catalog of speaker reviews from which one can tease out trends as well as potential inconsistencies. Erin in particular stresses often and clearly (sometimes even to the point of self-deprecation) that his subjective commentary is provided based on sited listening in his room and follows his preferences, and that his viewers may very well arrive at quite different conclusions. I see very little evidence of ego or manipulation in service of revenue or other compensation on display. While I haven't watched nearly all of his reviews (including the PS Audio video under discussion), I do recall Erin sharing in-room measurements in the past on occasion, and they largely corresponded to thewas' chart above, in that the room makes a mess of the bass, but above the transition frequency, his in-room measurements largely follow the NFS plots.

That said, when I do have some degree of interest in subjective impressions from trusted sources, I would prefer that they initially be provided prior to the reviewer's knowledge of the measurements (where possible) so that they would not be unduly biased by them. Ideally: listen and take notes > complete measurements > correlate > listen again > re-correlate and note any subjective changes (add another round post-EQ, if necessary). Will this ever be a perfect process? Nope. But in giving due weight to the limitations and perils involved, I find that flow to be the most agreeable.

 

[prerich]

As shared by others the verticals are on his site. The vertical response is slightly better than average, imo. More importantly, I just want to make clear the vertical response have pretty much nothing to do with the dips in the spinorama. The LW is bumpy, but the DI curves are smooth, ergo the vertical response isn't having much of an effect on the overall spin.

It might be a good idea for erin to just include other measurements in the video even if he doesn't feel like commenting on them. But he always puts them on his site.



I do want to point out this goes the other way too. Having spent 10 years doing reviews (not just audio), I felt I became increasingly prejudiced against flashy expensive products...

But then you might be aware of that, and try to correct for that bias.

But then you might overcorrect.... and so on and so forth.

A

I'll be honest, I do have my guard up. Every time Erin says, he does his subjective listening before he looks at the data, I tell myself don't put all my stock into this statement because that how one goes bankrupt.

But that does not take away the value of his subjective impression (whether he peeped at the measurements to make himself come across as a golden ear or not) because there are things the measurements can't tell. For example, with the Revel F228Be, you said "The sound was boomy and vocals lost in the midst of all that." one would never guess that from the data (granted it may have been room modes or other room acoustic properties, unless you did a REW measurement to prove otherwise); then there was a Magico bookshelf you review (which I can no longer find on ASR), the measurements were meh, but your subjective listening test was better than the measurements and you said in paraphrase: I told you guys I will be honest with you, so I am, while these speakers didn't measure great, but they sounded good, I recommend them.

Another example, I mentioned I recently got a pair of Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX, Ascent publishes their NFS data on their website, no where in that data (and I know I am no expert and I can be ignorant to reading the data) that can tell me the degree 3D imaging, the width of soundstage and the slam of mid bass punch.

Am I saying I believe everything in Erin's subjective review? Hell no, just like I can't take everything unquestioned in the subjective portion of your speaker reviews (case in point the F228Be's boominess, there was no REW measurements to go with it, so who is to say it wasn't a room mode). But the subjective portion does give a little bit more color, albeit one MUST take it with a grain of salt. That is why I always encourage others to examine the data and audition the speakers first (and at home if possible) before committing to it.

If I'm not mistaken it wasn't Magico speakers, it was the Wilson Tune Tots.

 

[CleanSound]

If I'm not mistaken it wasn't Magico speakers, it was the Wilson Tune Tots.

I'm very sure it was a Magico, because the looks is very distinctive, but I can't find it anymore, I even searched for it.

@amirm whatever happened to that review? Something happened? Did Magico's lawyer made you take it down?

 

[Shadrach]

Typical reflectivity absorption, so no extremes like the above mentioned. Of course you are also allowed to your own impression and opinion, I just showed that this is not the consensus here as you initially had presented it.

Really? So all the forum comments and threads regarding speaker placement and room treatments and DSP are a bit of a nonsense because in this normal listening room we can all hear through the annomalies in response the differing rooms present.
Very kind of you to allow me my own impressions and opinions but what I am suggesting is some measurements will prove the point; the room the equipment performs in a has a major impact on how the system will measure and the subjective impression it will provide.
Given the subjective reviewers may be trying to describe a difference a couple of decibels in a particular frequency range make to their impression of a loudspeaker and the room may give a ten or twelve decible drop or increase in a particular frequency range which can change with speaker orientation and room treatment and of course room volume, I think my point regarding the pointlessness of the subjective impressions is relevant.

There is a danger which I see repeated here on ASR of quoting studies without engaging some common sense, or understanding the limitations of such studies.

 

[thewas]

Really? So all the forum comments and threads regarding speaker placement and room treatments and DSP are a bit of a nonsense because in this normal listening room we can all hear through the annomalies in response the differing rooms present.

Is really that what you understood? The impact of the room is mainly the in the bass region where treatment and/or DSP makes sense but still an experienced listener who is accustomed to the room will hear a FR anomaly of the direct sound of the loudspeaker like a dip or peak, independently of the room it is in, so such review(er)s can still make some sense.

There is a danger which I see repeated here on ASR of quoting studies without engaging some common sense, or understanding the limitations of such studies.

There is a bigger danger though of ignoring the existing research and only trusting the own limited and anecdotal experiences instead.

 

[napilopez]

Really? So all the forum comments and threads regarding speaker placement and room treatments and DSP are a bit of a nonsense because in this normal listening room we can all hear through the annomalies in response the differing rooms present.
Very kind of you to allow me my own impressions and opinions but what I am suggesting is some measurements will prove the point; the room the equipment performs in a has a major impact on how the system will measure and the subjective impression it will provide.
Given the subjective reviewers may be trying to describe a difference a couple of decibels in a particular frequency range make to their impression of a loudspeaker and the room may give a ten or twelve decible drop or increase in a particular frequency range which can change with speaker orientation and room treatment and of course room volume, I think my point regarding the pointlessness of the subjective impressions is relevant.

There is a danger which I see repeated here on ASR of quoting studies without engaging some common sense, or understanding the limitations of such studies.

Have you read toole's book? Not to say that you have to read an entire book to understand, but one of the most important themes in the book is the repeated reinforcement of the idea that we can hear a speaker through the room above the transition frequency. Likewise that measurements in a room above the transition are not the same as two ears and a brain.

 

[MAB]

Really? So all the forum comments and threads regarding speaker placement and room treatments and DSP are a bit of a nonsense because in this normal listening room we can all hear through the annomalies in response the differing rooms present.

That's not what was said at all.

Very kind of you to allow me my own impressions and opinions but what I am suggesting is some measurements will prove the point; the room the equipment performs in a has a major impact on how the system will measure and the subjective impression it will provide.

None of your subjective impressions and opinions factor. You seem to misunderstand the posts, so you should feel the need to be sarcastic about 'kindness'. The posts are talking about obviously measurable aspects of rooms and speakers. Have you ever investigated a room simulation or done measurements of bass response in a room? If so, you will quickly see that rooms dominate the frequency response at low frequencies (modes) where the high frequency part is fairly predictable from the speakers' spin.

Given the subjective reviewers may be trying to describe a difference a couple of decibels in a particular frequency range make to their impression of a loudspeaker and the room may give a ten or twelve decible drop or increase in a particular frequency range which can change with speaker orientation and room treatment and of course room volume, I think my point regarding the pointlessness of the subjective impressions is relevant.

10-12dB (or more) in the bass, not in the treble.
Here is a pair of flat speakers' in-room measurements:

Please note that the bass is dramatically influenced by the room (>10dB), each speaker with different effect due to placement. Note the room reflections have altered the speakers' in-room response above 250Hz from the anechoic response as measured by Amir by less than 3dB, and are matched to each other's in-room response to better than that except at 1.6kHz and 2.5kHz. This effect is actually correctly discussed by Paul in several of the PS Audio videos. This is typical of rooms. This physical effect is what was being referred to, nothing to do with your impressions.

There is a danger which I see repeated here on ASR of quoting studies without engaging some common sense, or understanding the limitations of such studies.

I think you are misunderstanding @thewas comments, the measurements and literature is pretty clear. But you don't have to trust ASR members though, you should read Toole as already suggested.

edit: typo

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Well, apparently this is the thread for the fr10



Measurements were better than i expected, i always think a planar mid range makes sense and that wide soundstage with very low distortion and IMD kind of confirm what i thinked about this speaker, my only problem is the price.. for 5k-7k would be more resonable.

I like the speaker, just too much $ imho.

 

[nerdemoji]

Well, this has gotten completely out of hand… Suspected this would happen.

For reviews of products, we must be impartial to the company. Does PS Audio sell snake oil? Yes. Is that relevant to the review? No.

This product has some positives and some negatives. On axis is fairly poor. There is no disputing that. As Erin stated, there are problems that are obviously not neutral and the sound is improved by fixing them. So with EQ do I think it is strong? Certainly. Both Directivity, compression and distortion are good (especially distortion).

Nobody would argue that these compete in terms of neutrality with studio monitors from Genelec or Neumann. Without EQ, they have some sound problems, but they do not have broad deviations from neutrality, which makes them usable.

Price is obviously an issue, they should not have such problems at this price point, though their intended audience probably isn’t too concerned with accuracy that much.


I disagree with Amir and your take on Erin’s subjective section. I don’t think subjective evaluations hold no value. Though the sound can be measured, not every audio phenomenon has a direct correlation to some obvious measurement. One example is soundstage, which people debate about all the time. Objecting that Erin doesn’t have in-room measurements is fair, though what information would that bring us that is useful. And if it is so useful, (perhaps I missed it somewhere, but) why haven’t I seen you take in-room measurements of your equipment.

We know having information about something when evaluating it adds bias to our perceptions. So, seeing a product adds to this. I would argue that seeing measurements of a product would too, in fact more. The Spin and other data tells us a lot about the sound characteristics, and we will no-doubt suspect them, adding to bias before listening. Maybe I missed it somewhere, but how does listening to the speaker after measuring make it more objective. By giving ourselves information about the performance, we are actually just adding bias, clouding the mind with opinion and thoughts about the sound before we hear it.

Why does ASR exist guys? Amir and others please lend your thoughts. From my perspective, it
1 provides a place for audio science enthusiasts, HiFi enthusiasts, etc to converse and discuss topics.
2 Creates/promotes objective measurements for equipment to:
3 Provide consumers a place to go when considering products
4 Encourage the industry to improve and trend towards Anti-Bullshit and towards well-measuring equipment. We did this by:
5 Combating bad faith subjective reviewers that gave no objective measurements and shilled horrible products for money with no basis

This last one is important. Erin is not a bad faith reviewer. He subjectively evaluates with the lowest possible bias, knowing only the speaker, not the measurements. He always, always does extremely high quality measurements that are very useful for our hobby. I don’t see any valid criticism to Erin. If you don’t like his subjective reviews, just ignore it, like he says.

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

Well, apparently this is the thread for the fr10



Measurements were better than i expected, i always think a planar mid range makes sense and that wide soundstage with very low distortion and IMD kind of confirm what i thinked about this speaker, my only problem is the price.. for 5k-7k would be more resonable.

I like the speaker, just too much $ imho.

This got a little spicy overnight. I can see why this debate was prompted though and a good spirited discussion about these things is worthwhile to a lot of readers to better understand what's going on.

I too wish that we had launched these at a lower price as I'd love to get them in more people's hands. At PS, management have figured out a margin that keeps the company afloat and healthy but I'd love to get more aggressive to do better in product comparisons. One thing to keep in mind is that, if you call our sales team and/or are trading in gear, you can get them in the $7.5K range. Internationally, that isn't the case though as there is a lot of additional cost in shipping/importing and local support etc.

 

[AudioJester]

I find correlating my own subjective impressions with subsequent objective measurements a lot of fun. Not applicable to anyone else, but neither is my hearing.

Case in point. At an audio show last year I listened to this PS Audio speaker and the March audio bookshelf. One sounded brilliant, the other 'meh' to me. Now I have proper measurements of both to try and reconcile what I was hearing.
As a hobby/interest beyond the music, isnt this great?

I also measure and EQ. The EQ/DSP I come up with is based on scientific principles, and adjusted to my preference. Not blinded testing that will hold upto peer review.

I can relate to Erin's reviews, and use the practicality of Amir's reviews.

 

[amirm]

When we say that the background is "dark" or the treble is "bright" or the bass is "sluggish" or has "punch" we are making analogies to visual and kinetic sense modalities, respectively.

In the above quote you use the terms "throw out" and "run with". Are you anti-science because you use such analogies? Or do we really physically "throw out "science and "run with" commentary?

No. I am using conversational English in an argument. I am not describing the performance of a speaker. No subjective published study of speakers/headphones use the terms he is using. They are borrowed from non-scientific, subjectivist reviewers to appeal to broader audience. It has zero probative value.

 

[amirm]

The research of Toole and others says rather the opposite, namely that people tend to hear "through" rooms and the perceived sonic signatures don't change much, similar as when we are listening to different human voices in different rooms. Also the region where rooms behaviour even from measurement point of view dominate is the bass region, above the loudspeakers dominate.

Source of image: https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/revi...rs-using-focus-fidelity-filter-designer-r990/

Room is in control or partially responsible in the very region Erin spent time talking about. Remember he mentioned woofer location, etc. and 200 to 500 Hz region. Those are issues below or at transition.

Notice how in many of my reviews I show a filter for 105 Hz because I know that is a peak in my room. Without it, speakers that have good low frequency get boomy, putting them at a disadvantage. You don't see any room related correction or comments from Erin. Like any other subjectivist review, he talks as if he is entirely hearing the speaker.

I keep my subjective comments short because any more than that is straining credibility and putting way too much weight behind the impressions. Yes, issues of bass distortion, woofer running out of excursion and such are very reliable. And so is EQ. Bits other than that, should be taken very cautiously and certainly not justified based on reference to Dr. Toole's teachings. After all, if we were to follow your trust in such subjective assessments, then he and Dr. Olive would not have needed double blind testing!

 

[amirm]

That said, when I do have some degree of interest in subjective impressions from trusted sources, I would prefer that they initially be provided prior to the reviewer's knowledge of the measurements (where possible) so that they would not be unduly biased by them. Ideally: listen and take notes > complete measurements > correlate > listen again > re-correlate and note any subjective changes (add another round post-EQ, if necessary). Will this ever be a perfect process? Nope. But in giving due weight to the limitations and perils involved, I find that flow to be the most agreeable.

Once more. Subjective listening of general fidelity of a speaker is very unreliable. There is strong research on that:

See where the audio reviewers rank. This is a rating of how reliable and consistent their assessment is in controlled testing.

Any subjective testing needs to be focused and specific. Thinks like "love midrange" has no place here.

There are incredible sources of bias that are harmful in evaluation of speaker, such as the looks, being loaned an expensive speaker, etc. Measurements are a source of bias but that is the good kind. It informs the reviewer where the flaws may be so that they can focus on that. And avoid saying stupid things like a speaker is warm and smooth on top when measurements show the opposite. Measurements absolutely help to deliver better subjective assessment. Please don't keep going by your intuition here to say otherwise. A sighted test doesn't become scientific all of a sudden because you don't measure.

 

[amirm]

Think of whether your doctor is improperly biased by the diagnostic tests he/she has ran. Does anyone here want to argue that he would be a better doctor if he/she tried to figure out what is wrong with you without any testing???

 

[amirm]

I disagree with Amir and your take on Erin’s subjective section. I don’t think subjective evaluations hold no value. Though the sound can be measured, not every audio phenomenon has a direct correlation to some obvious measurement. One example is soundstage, which people debate about all the time.

That is an example. But the solution is not to throw speakers in one's living room, use a random Michael Jackson track and claim that tells you this speaker images well or not. Stereo speakers placed in a room create huge number of variables in assessing such things. Add to it the content characteristics and you have an impossible puzzle to solve.

The best you can do is what I do which mimics the research: listen to a single speaker and see if the image is that of a point or larger. Even that is hard to quantify and fully defend. Hence the reason I say it in passing rather than going on and on about it.

It is great that you all trust Erin and I with subjective commentary but when I am the one volunteering on issues there, please listen, pun intended. I have tested 290 speakers so far. You can never, ever trust my pure subjective remarks without measurements as a reason to buy anything!

 

[mglobe]

This got a little spicy overnight. I can see why this debate was prompted though and a good spirited discussion about these things is worthwhile to a lot of readers to better understand what's going on.

I too wish that we had launched these at a lower price as I'd love to get them in more people's hands. At PS, management have figured out a margin that keeps the company afloat and healthy but I'd love to get more aggressive to do better in product comparisons. One thing to keep in mind is that, if you call our sales team and/or are trading in gear, you can get them in the $7.5K range. Internationally, that isn't the case though as there is a lot of additional cost in shipping/importing and local support etc.

Always appreciate your contributions here, and very happy that you guys were willing to send your speakers to Erin

 

[rynberg]

It is great that you all trust Erin and I with subjective commentary but when I am the one volunteering on issues there, please listen, pun intended. I have tested 290 speakers so far. You can never, ever trust my pure subjective remarks without measurements as a reason to buy anything!

Amir, your posts seem to imply that Erin is only posting a subjective commentary, which is obviously not true. One can easily skip the commentary and jump right to the data, either on his website or his time-stamped YouTube videos. I really don't see much difference in the subjective commentary posted here and by Erin, other than Erin spends more time talking about what he experienced than you do -- I seem to recall several reviews in which you said you really liked a speaker despite the measurements showing several flaws. I'm not sure why that type of commentary should be considered differently than Erin's....

 

[mj30250]

Once more. Subjective listening of general fidelity of a speaker is very unreliable. There is strong research on that:

See where the audio reviewers rank. This is a rating of how reliable and consistent their assessment is in controlled testing.

Any subjective testing needs to be focused and specific. Thinks like "love midrange" has no place here.

There are incredible sources of bias that are harmful in evaluation of speaker, such as the looks, being loaned an expensive speaker, etc. Measurements are a source of bias but that is the good kind. It informs the reviewer where the flaws may be so that they can focus on that. And avoid saying stupid things like a speaker is warm and smooth on top when measurements show the opposite. Measurements absolutely help to deliver better subjective assessment. Please don't keep going by your intuition here to say otherwise. A sighted test doesn't become scientific all of a sudden because you don't measure.

In the context of the present discussion, I think "audio reviewers" is far too broad a category to paint with the same brush. Reviewers run the gamut from complete and total marketing shills to those such as yourself who largely strive to link objectivity with subjectivity (isn't that after all the crux of Toole's research?). I would agree that the Venn diagram of "trained listeners" and "audio reviewers" is pretty close to two separate circles, but there are some notable exceptions in the middle.

Having watched several of Erin's videos, I do find it helpful when he begins a review by providing a subjective assessment of what he heard prior to measuring, particularly when there appear to be obvious resonances, large directivity errors, tilted up treble, etc etc, because he is generally able to link those subjective findings with the actual data (could he be "cheating" at times? I don't know, but I've not run across any clear evidence of such so will not address the topic further). I think when approached with the knowledge that this process can never be perfect, it can indeed provide some level of value in helping the general public to correlate the actual data with what a listener might expect to hear in a typical domestic room. As mentioned, Erin does at times listen again after viewing the measurements to hone in on a particular data point or another. We can quibble over the validity of audiophile-esque language choices such as "love the midrange", sure. Perhaps Erin went overboard in this review, I don't know. I haven't watched it. In my experience, he generally makes an effort to limit it, and when he doesn't, he almost always includes clear disclaimers and even apologies at times. One can choose to discount all of it and that's perfectly fine. I personally don't find the need to toss out the baby with the bath water.

 

[hmt]

Erin made a nice review of this speaker. Together with amirs reviews those er the two most helpful reviewers of audio stuff at the moment. Why does it always have to be that toxic? No wonder that the public is not liking „the science“ when it they behaves like that. Being „right“ means not much if you are toxic and too gatekeeperish.