Amir,
Keep in mind I'm not arguing that Erin has made some absolutely rigorous "case closed" in his review.
As usual, I'm talking about what reasonable inferences I can draw from his review, in a practical sense.
Any such claims need to be backed by in-room measurements. None were provided. Room modes mix with speaker response creating a very complex, and situation specific experience. No way what he said can be taken at face value and be useful for anyone else.
Erin is a careful listener and I don't think it unreasonable to accept that, subjectively, he found the FR10s allowed somewhat closer position to the backwall without over-emphasizing the bass relative to many other speakers he's reviewed.
And his pointing to the Klippel measurements showing a dip in the bass response, again presumably relative to other loudspeakers that didn't take as well to closer all placement, seemed to make his subjective account plausible.
So...I think it's reasonable to think he was identifying subjectively and objectively a real characteristic of the loudspeaker. Even if not to a level of scientific certainty.
Phrases like "satisfying sense of lower mid upper bass" have no specificity. There is no reason to think that Erin has special acuity to determine something this nebulous. This is stuff we read from random subjectivist reviewer. And who is to say the range is 200 to 500 Hz? Where did that come from? Maybe it is 200 to 350. On the lower woofer thing, again, he would have to provide a measurement to demonstrate that. With no data, he can't say that is the reason for said "satisfying sense." Maybe the in-room measurements show the exact opposite.
You cut off some of the quote:
"He talked about a satisfying sense of lower mid upper bass transition and kick/punch that he found very satisfying, especially around 200 to 500 Hz region."
Erin repeated that the speakers gave a sense of strong upper midbass punch.
The concept of upper/midbass "punch" is not "nebulous." Terms like adding "punch" are used all the time in sound and mixing. And it's very often attributed to the range Erin specified:
When mixing electronic music, one of the most important sounds to focus on is your kick drum. However, getting the right kick drum mixing results can be hard. In this article, you will learn two kick drum mixing techniques, equalization and...
www.productionmusiclive.com
These are the kick drum frequencies to look for:
- 25-50 Hz: Ultra-Low Bass Rumble
- 50-80 Hz: Clearer Bass Notes
- 80-200 Hz: Punch
- 200-500 Hz: Boxiness and Muddiness
- 600 Hz-1,2 kHz: Knocking Click
- 1,2 kHz-6kHz: High Click
You're here because your mix feels flat and you want to give it impact. We cover everything from EQ to stereo imaging. Get reading.
mixbutton.com
Punch specifically can be leveraged by low-end frequencies. These most commonly come from your drums or percussion. Try boosting around 100-200 Hz. This will give that extra oomph which contributes to the power of the mix.
Now, it will depend on the recording character and the instruments where exactly more "punch" will occur - it can go somewhat below 100Hz or in to the 600Hz range depending (I often add around 150Hz for punching up lots of sounds).
But Erin is certainly in the ball park of talking about the right frequencies for "punch" and the measurements as I mentioned support his account.
Given I'm a nut about drum sound reproduction in a system, I care that kick drums and bass have a "punchy" live character, and so Erin reporting these speakers do well in that region is informative.
Soundstage is predominantly a function of the recording.
Next in line is the very complex interaction of a speaker with its room. Further, someone's sense of characterizing soundstage is totally unreliable and unverifiable. Does your room look like his? Do you listen to the same track? Do you have his sense of the concept of soundstage?
Erin has been quite descriptive in his reviews as to what he's talking about with a soundstage, and his preferences: Some speakers seem to have a more narrow presentation, contain the sound between the speakers, but Erin prefers speakers that sound more open and extended so there is less of a sense of the speaker boundaries being strict borders on the soundstage, and the sense the sound goes somewhat beyond the outer edges of the speakers, making the speakers seem to "disappear" more rather than strictly delineate all soundstages between the speakers.
I don't know about you, but I've heard what he's talking about many times. I've heard some loudspeakers present many tracks I'm familiar with in a narrower presentation, and some with a more open wider deeper presentation. With some speakers it's effortless to get that "wide open" soundstage effect...others less so. If you have never experienced this...I don't know what to say, but I have so I get what Erin is identifying.
And I believe that one can find trends in subjective reviews that identify such characteristics. You won't find a single review of MBL omnis that don't talk about their wide open spacious imaging. You can find such trends in other speakers, e.g. the Audio Physic brand, even the Joseph Audio speakers I own, and there are plenty of other examples.
Proper science says that speakers with wide dispersion cause an apparent image shift (toward the walls). They give a more diffused soundstage. That is all that you can say about it. Anymore more is pretending to be some golden ear subjectivist reviewer imagining things you can't prove.
No that's not all you can say about it. A perceptive listener
who is willing to put sonic impressions in to words, can have a lot more to contribute. A speaker is used to play music mostly, and so we care about how the character of a speaker affects how music sounds. "Diffuse" wouldn't tell you much. It is more helpful to give specific examples, as subjective reviewers do, and as Erin did, as to how the speaker affects musical content. Erin gave specific music examples indicating the sense of wide open dispersion and "immersion," as well as specific recording examples to illustrate that the speaker nonetheless had precise and "not too diffuse/confused" imaging. His descriptions of how the Michael Jackson footsteps imaged with precision on the FR10s was very informative, suggesting the speaker had open, immersive imaging while not sacrificing imaging precision. And I'm not sure that would be so easy to divine, especially the imagine precision he encountered, just from the measurements.
If the frequency response shows this, then I don't need his subjective remarks. And sure, everyone knows you can play with toe in to reduce high frequencies.
The subjective remarks suggest his hearing was accurate enough to track with some of the more obvious measurable characteristics. And maybe you can look at the measurements and have a pretty good idea how they will sound on and off axis. But a good reviewer understands he's interpreting to a broader audience, in which not everyone (probably few) can look at the measurements and know precisely how the speaker will sound. So Erin's subjective comments help explain the relevance of the speaker's design and measurements, their subjective consequences.
Classic nonsense praise from every subjective reviewer. Oh I did not get fatigued. What if I get fatigued? Where is the research that indicates what causes fatigue?
If you watch Erin's content you can get a better sense of this. For instance if he's reviewing Focal or Klipsche speakers and noting how he found the brightness uncomfortable without EQing it down, and showing in the measurements where that brightness is coming from, then there is some context for his saying the FR10s were not fatiguing for him to listen. Having heard Focal and Klipsche speakers, I get a sense of what he's describing.
Reads even more like an Absolute Sound reviewer than anyone saying they believe in objectivity.
As I've said before, communication is a two-way street. It is hard to communicate with someone who is not motivated to understand what the other person is trying to communicate. Yes there is lots of unhelpful b.s. in subjective reviews, but putting sound in to language is far from useless. We can communicate that way if we care to. A tool is only useful if you use it.
So thanks for writing all of this up.
No problem
www.stereophile.com
