Why don't all speaker manufacturers design for flat on-axis and smooth off-axis?

[Blumlein 88]

@amirm , you wrote:

«See? That is not what the paper is about. Read the thing before summarizing such. The abstract of a paper is not enough. As I mentioned, they want to create new vocabulary to describe tonality of speakers. It has nothing to do with "perception and specifications."»

I don’t quite get what you’re writing here. Let me show you what is the intention of the authors using an article to can be read as a run-up to the JAES article (https://assets.madebydelta.com/assets/docs/senselab/publications/TEKnotat_TN11_UK_v5.pdf).

Take a look at the excerpt below:

View attachment 29761
Source: https://assets.madebydelta.com/assets/docs/senselab/publications/TEKnotat_TN11_UK_v5.pdf

For good order I will paste the text above here (my underlining):

«Interesting relationships
Figure 18 shows that in general, there is no relationship between the experienced bass depth and the technical data for the low frequency limit. Four of the loudspeakers more or less had the same lower frequency limit of 50–53 Hz, yet they were assessed as having a large (and significant) difference in the perceived Bass Strength. The same applies to DALI Menuet and DALI Opticon 2, whose respec- tive bass depth was assessed as being quite different, while the data stated that both had a lower frequency limit of 59 Hz. The fact that you cannot assess a loudspeaker’s sound based on the tech- nical data is hardly new, however it is still interesting to see it demonstrated with a well-defined listen- ing test. In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

The author(s) makes the point that speaker sound could follow the example of wine and beer reviews:

View attachment 29762

So specifications and perception are obviously what interests these authors.

FWIW, the authors also look at speaker volume and bass quality, as well as preference vs price:

View attachment 29763

You may dislike what the authors write, but I cannot see I misrepresented the underlying intention and opinion of the authors.

While it appears some measurements were done, it isn't clear reading this if they measured these - 3db points. If they merely used manufacturer specs and the differences aren't large either, I don't know this carries much weight.

 

[amirm]

This kind of research suggests real speaker reviews should be a hybrid of objective measurements and subjective blind tests.

That is NOT what the AES paper says. It actually says they can model the subjective outcome using their model:

That was the whole thesis of the paper. How can you malposition it yet again???

But yes, everyone listens to speakers to evaluate them post measurements.

 

[svart-hvitt]

I have no dislike for that article which I have already read. As I explained about the AES version, it is a decent effort to create a vocabulary for sound. That it criticizes simple frequency response curves is not new or controversial. You actually quoted the authors saying the same: "The fact that you cannot assess a loudspeaker’s sound based on the tech- nical data is hardly new, however it is still interesting to see it demonstrated with a well-defined listen- ing test. "

In no way does it critique the work we are discussing with full spinorama and correlation of that with countless listening tests. Similar observations are documented in detail by work of Olive, etc. You just haven't read them or understand them so continue to think this is somehow new. It is different but not new.

Instead of googling, spend a few dollars and buy the actual AES papers we and you are discussing. If you don't understand them, ask questions. Otherwise you continue to waste our time with these protests.

I have already told you I downloaded the full JAES article after I found it in an AES journal archive search. I quoted statements from that article that are not from the abstract. When you write I should buy it and read it, it is just one of your repeating attempts at master suppression technique. I still cannot see I misrepresented the Danish audio team’s intentions and opinions.

It seems like you want to misread and misunderstand people who simply want open mindedness. When @oivavoi raised questions earlier in this thread (see for example https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-4#post-199453), it serves as an example that you put open-minded members in a position where they get defensive.

And it seems you still haven’t understood what the Danish authors mean, which must be read as a critique of purely objective data relying on correlations with preferences in determining a speaker’s quality:

«In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

 

[Xulonn]

«In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

So what are you arguing about? Amir, myself, and every objectivist I know would agree with that.

And of course, the listening must be blind with the listener not knowing what loudspeaker they are listening, a condition that will negate unavoidable subconscious prejudices and influences.

If a person falls in love with the appearance of a loudspeaker, and likes its sonic character in sighted listening session, that is o.k. - but it is not a judgement based simply on the perception of vibrations in the air - or what we know as sound.

I also think that most of us accept the fact that measurements (e.g., technical data) CAN - most of the time but not always - predict the likelihood of a particular general sonic character of a loudspeaker.

 

[MSNWatch]

That article did not measure the actual frequency response of the speakers and instead relied on manufacturers specifications which in my mind totally invalidates figure 18.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

@amirm , you wrote:

«See? That is not what the paper is about. Read the thing before summarizing such. The abstract of a paper is not enough. As I mentioned, they want to create new vocabulary to describe tonality of speakers. It has nothing to do with "perception and specifications."»

I don’t quite get what you’re writing here. Let me show you what is the intention of the authors using an article to can be read as a run-up to the JAES article (https://assets.madebydelta.com/assets/docs/senselab/publications/TEKnotat_TN11_UK_v5.pdf).

Take a look at the excerpt below:

View attachment 29761
Source: https://assets.madebydelta.com/assets/docs/senselab/publications/TEKnotat_TN11_UK_v5.pdf

For good order I will paste the text above here (my underlining):

«Interesting relationships
Figure 18 shows that in general, there is no relationship between the experienced bass depth and the technical data for the low frequency limit. Four of the loudspeakers more or less had the same lower frequency limit of 50–53 Hz, yet they were assessed as having a large (and significant) difference in the perceived Bass Strength. The same applies to DALI Menuet and DALI Opticon 2, whose respec- tive bass depth was assessed as being quite different, while the data stated that both had a lower frequency limit of 59 Hz. The fact that you cannot assess a loudspeaker’s sound based on the tech- nical data is hardly new, however it is still interesting to see it demonstrated with a well-defined listen- ing test. In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

The author(s) makes the point that speaker sound could follow the example of wine and beer reviews:

View attachment 29762

So specifications and perception are obviously what interests these authors.

FWIW, the authors also look at speaker volume and bass quality, as well as preference vs price:

View attachment 29763

You may dislike what the authors write, but I cannot see I misrepresented the underlying intention and opinion of the authors.

Differences in bass performance can be measured, and it is not very difficult.

First, they should be measured in equal conditions, to verify where the roll-off actually is. Differences between measured and claimed does not necessarily mean the data is wrong, could be they were simply measured in different conditions.

Then the steepness of the roll-off will have some impact due to resonance and decay, but in most practical in-room situations, the room will have much greater influence. Choice of tuning and ported vs sealed affects this.

And then the most important, measure frequency response at higher spl levels up to spl that matches peak level of the music playing. With small speakers especially, this will reveal that the bass now rolls off different from what the small-signal response showed. This is caused by nonlinearities.

With this new measured information, it should be expected to find a much better correlation between actual technical data and perceived performance.

At higher frequencies the radiation pattern also becomes important, and the whole exercise gets much more complex.

 

[MSNWatch]

For instance the CM1 s2 has been measured to have a -3db point of 50hz (Butterworth) while stereophile has the Zensor at -6db at 55hz. The article states 50 and 53 hz respectively but the actual measurements tell a totally different story that explains the difference in their bass depth scores.

 

[napilopez]

Yeah, I'm really not sure why that JAES paper is being brought up. All it says really suggests is that manufacturer-provided specs often don't line up with real world results. That... as the paper says, is "hardly new."

Now repeat the test with speakers that each have extensive anechoic data available. I'll be you two tacos the correlation would be there.

 

[Kvalsvoll]

I have already told you I downloaded the full JAES article after I found it in an AES journal archive search. I quoted statements from that article that are not from the abstract. When you write I should buy it and read it, it is just one of your repeating attempts at master suppression technique. I still cannot see I misrepresented the Danish audio team’s intentions and opinions.

It seems like you want to misread and misunderstand people who simply want open mindedness. When @oivavoi raised questions earlier in this thread (see for example https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-4#post-199453), it serves as an example that you put open-minded members in a position where they get defensive.

And it seems you still haven’t understood what the Danish authors mean, which must be read as a critique of purely objective data relying on correlations with preferences in determining a speaker’s quality:

«In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

Unfortunately, that is the current status. («In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.» )

Some of the measurements and data tells something about the sound, but they do not completely visualize how the speaker will sound when I put it in my room. But that does not mean it can not be done. It is just a matter of finding a method to visualize and display the information from measurements, in a way that makes it possible to correlate data on paper to sound we hear.

Those papers from Harman are very good and relevant information on the way here. You have to start somewhere. And by using this information, you get a free ride up to the next level.

And this is where things start to get a bit strange - I get the impression that many on this forum agree that all this has been solved, and there is no need to go any further.

One problem is that doing controlled experiments with speakers is complicated and requires a lot of work and installations. And it is always easy to criticize afterwards and point out everything that was wrong with the experiment.

The clue lies in the radiation pattern of the speakers. This is what determines the character of the sound. Until you turn it up too loud, and the speakers start to compress and distort. But radiation pattern is frequency response, and then it just becomes a matter of how detailed this 3-dimensional response needs to be presented, to give sufficient information. Those Harman-papers present one method for this, using on-axis and additional responses representing DI and 1. reflections. This is not enough.

What I see is that nonlinearities causing compression, and the shape of the radiation pattern, are important for how a speaker sounds.

But you also must consider the application - if someone never play loud, it is not necessary to have huge spl capacity, and compression will never be a problem.

 

[amirm]

I have already told you I downloaded the full JAES article after I found it in an AES journal archive search.

Did you download and read the Harman research too? Or do we need to continue to suffer due to your impression of it as opposed to reality....

 

[amirm]

When @oivavoi raised questions earlier in this thread (see for example https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-4#post-199453), it serves as an example that you put open-minded members in a position where they get defensive.

He and others can and should question what we say. You are not them and are not acting the same way.

The lesson for you is to stop being dogmatic and NOT put more value on source of research as opposed to validity of it. You wear that on your sleeve and it gets annoying on the second or third try let alone the twentieth time we are dealing with it. We have heard it. You don't like research out of north america or anything harman related. That is the net of what comes across in your posts, not any quest to add information to the discussion.

 

[March Audio]

I have already told you I downloaded the full JAES article after I found it in an AES journal archive search. I quoted statements from that article that are not from the abstract. When you write I should buy it and read it, it is just one of your repeating attempts at master suppression technique. I still cannot see I misrepresented the Danish audio team’s intentions and opinions.

It seems like you want to misread and misunderstand people who simply want open mindedness. When @oivavoi raised questions earlier in this thread (see for example https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s-and-smooth-off-axis.8090/page-4#post-199453), it serves as an example that you put open-minded members in a position where they get defensive.

And it seems you still haven’t understood what the Danish authors mean, which must be read as a critique of purely objective data relying on correlations with preferences in determining a speaker’s quality:

«In other words, if you want to know how a loudspeaker sounds, it is more sensible to use a perceptual assessment of a loudspeaker’s sound based on a listening test rather than taking outset in the technical data.»

Which, to re-iterate what Amir has said, has little to do with the Toole et al research. The Toole research looks for a correlation between listener preference and anechoic measurements......and boy did it find it with amazing accuracy. It is not about specifically developing a vocabulary for sound quality description.

I'm not sure how / why you have conflated the two seperate things.

 

[March Audio]

That article did not measure the actual frequency response of the speakers and instead relied on manufacturers specifications which in my mind totally invalidates figure 18.

And of course we know a simple frequency response is wholly inadequate for sound quality assessment. You need 3d data, a la spinorama.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Did you download and read the Harman research too? Or do we need to continue to suffer due to your impression of it as opposed to reality....

I have on numerous occasions cited @Floyd Toole ‘s book, which you know.

 

[MSNWatch]

And of course we know a simple frequency response is wholly inadequate for sound quality assessment. You need 3d data, a la spinorama.

And we also know how manufacturers love to inflate their claimed measurements without providing actual data to back them up.

 

[svart-hvitt]

He and others can and should question what we say. You are not them and are not acting the same way.

The lesson for you is to stop being dogmatic and NOT put more value on source of research as opposed to validity of it. You wear that on your sleeve and it gets annoying on the second or third try let alone the twentieth time we are dealing with it. We have heard it. You don't like research out of north america or anything harman related. That is the net of what comes across in your posts, not any quest to add information to the discussion.

On a Norwegian hifi forum I have been accused of citing «guru Toole». On this forum, I am accused of being hostile North American research. So the truth is probably somewhere in between. Middle way is often better than a binary position.

But to be clear: I think @Floyd Toole ‘s book is the single most valuable source to understanding audio reproduction.

However, are there some issues that cannot be readily answered by that book, say for example why Salón won a shooutout versus M2? What should I look for in this research to determine what is the best speaker; a Salón or an M2? Or do we still need listening tests to determine this?

Greetings from sunny Florida

 

[amirm]

On a Norwegian hifi forum I have been accused of citing «guru Toole». On this forum, I am accused of being hostile North American research. So the truth is probably somewhere in between. Middle way is often better than a binary position.

That will serve you well on whether earth is round or flat....

 

[amirm]

However, are there some issues that cannot be readily answered by that book, say for example why Salón won a shooutout versus M2.

That was a hobbyist test, not a controlled experiment published in research paper.

The current state of research gives you most likely answer, not the absolute one. All of Revel speakers follow this research but they are different models with different characteristics.

 

[svart-hvitt]

That will serve you well on whether earth is round or flat....

Why do you call me a flat earther?

If you want me to leave you couldn’t be clearer.

 

[amirm]

Why do you call me a flat earther?

If you want me to leave you couldn’t be clearer.

No, you said middle of the road answers are best. I am saying that is not at all wise in many scenarios and gave you an example.

You say you quote and believe the research we are talking about yet you say you want to distance yourself from it and land in the middle? Why? The arguments to the contrary have nowhere close to the same standing. Just like the above example.

As to my wish, is to simply lower the level of protests. We are not accomplishing much constantly countering that outburst.