Research Project: Infinity IL10 Speaker Review & Measurements

[SEKLEM]

Only a few hours in but subjective first impressions: while the 530 is pretty flat to 5k, my IL-10 has noticeably less energy in the 1500-5000k range so at first listening I was taken aback how more laid back it sounded. One gets used to it but I think I prefer the more zippy and more detailed 530 presentation there but it's just a first impression. Bass seems more articulate on the Infinity which I do prefer. I'm hearing information from outside the L-R boundaries of the IL-30 which I don't recall hearing with the JBL (on the Roches first album). I'll have to check back on that track with the 530.

Here's the Anthem Genesis measurements with my two LSR310s subs. At this point I've just applied room correction to 400hz and a little bass boost with 70hz center. (not shown). While I can't compare to the Revel M16 I will say they're the best $85 speakers I've heard.

Interesting impressions. While I had the 530s I noted that the bass had obvious limits and they worked best mated with a subwoofer. They had satisfying bass but there was a lot of port noise with certain tones and it was significant at levels exceeding what I'd call casual listening. The center image of the 530s was effortless. I tried them toed in and out and they still presented a strong center image thanks to the horn. I can't identify the specific frequency range that the IL10 had trouble with, other than to say most bookshelf speakers have trouble in this area which can result in a "bloom" effect with certain material (higher male vocals, lower female vocals, piano). It sounds like upper midbass, lower midrange area. The 530 did a better job of handling that material without "blooming".

While I did find the sound space presented by the 530s to appear larger than the speakers themselves, the IL10s seem to handle this differently. The pin point location of instruments and vocals is less focused with the IL10 and wider. They are definitely a laid back speaker. I'd call the Infinity IL10 a "sultry" speaker. They're an easy listening speaker. I will keep at least one pair of them indefinitely. While I appreciated the capabilities of the JBL 530s I did not keep them. I'm very happy with what I have now.

 

[Jmudrick]

I’ve compared these two. I won’t taint your impressions by sharing my mine. I’ll be interested to get your take and talk to you about it.

Only a few hours in but subjective first impressions: while the 530 is pretty flat to 5k, my IL-10 has noticeably less energy in the 1500-5000k range so at first listening I was taken aback how more laid back it sounded. One gets used to it but I think I prefer the more zippy and more detailed530 presentation there but it's just a first impression. Bass seems more articulate on the Infinity which I do prefer. I'm hearing information from outside the L-R boundaries of the IL-30 which I don't recall hearing with the JBL (on the Roches first album). I'll have to check back on that track with the 530.

Here's the Anthem Genesis measurements with my two LSR310s subs. At this point I've just applied room correction to 400hz and a little bass boost with 70hz center. (not shown). While I can't compare to the Revel M16 I will say they're the best $85 speakers I've heard.

View attachment 75123

Interesting impressions. While I had the 530s I noted that the bass had obvious limits and they worked best mated with a subwoofer. They had satisfying bass but there was a lot of port noise with certain tones and it was significant at levels exceeding what I'd call casual listening. The center image of the 530s was effortless. I tried them toed in and out and they still presented a strong center image thanks to the horn. I can't identify the specific frequency range that the IL10 had trouble with, other than to say most bookshelf speakers have trouble in this area which can result in a "bloom" effect with certain material (higher male vocals, lower female vocals, piano). It sounds like upper midbass, lower midrange area. The 530 did a better job of handling that material without "blooming".

While I did find the sound space presented by the 530s to appear larger than the speakers themselves, the IL10s seem to handle this differently. The pin point location of instruments and vocals is less focused with the IL10 and wider. They are definitely a laid back speaker. I'd call the Infinity IL10 a "sultry" speaker. They're an easy listening speaker. I will keep at least one pair of them indefinitely. While I appreciated the capabilities of the JBL 530s I did not keep them. I'm very happy with what I have now.

I much prefer the effect of the waveguide on the 530. As you say it presents a much more stable image as you move around.

I've only listened to both with the subs as that's how I do all my listening. Takes care of port noise.

 

[napilopez]

Appreciate the extra impressions @SEKLEM and @Jmudrick. Your comparisons of the IL10 vs 530 make complete sense from the measurements.

With the IL10 you can see there's a steep drop off from 1K to 2K, giving that laid back sound (it's more exacerbated when you use the proper early reflections curve). It's almost like a 2-3dB shelf going from the mids to upper mids and beyond.

(Posted the corrected version of the ER to accentuate the matter).

Which very notably is not in the 530's measurements.

 

[Jmudrick]

Appreciate the extra impressions @SEKLEM and @Jmudrick. Your comparisons of the IL10 vs 530 make complete sense from the measurements.

With the IL10 you can see there's a steep drop off from 1K to 2K, giving that laid back sound (it's more exacerbated when you use the proper early reflections curve). It's almost like a 2-3dB shelf going from the mids to upper mids and beyond.
View attachment 75161

(Posted the corrected version of the ER to accentuate the matter).

Which very notably is not in the 530's measurements.

Yup. I'm listening now to the Infinity with a full frequency correction with 5db tilt which does away with that shelf . Haven't decided yet if this is best that be got from the correction.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Thought experiment.
Fundamentally, it seems to me that one could imagine, and maybe engineer, two speakers with a close enough to the same spin measurements.
One where the cabinet was effectively inert and with all the drivers working in an entirely pistonic fashion (ie no breakup), a second where all the cabinet radiation and driver resonances were compensated for, either in the damping applied to the drivers or in the crossover or DSP.
It seems unlikely to me that these speakers would sound the same.
IME doing DIY a more inert cabinet and better drivers have always made for improved clarity, though I suppose it could have been expectation bias.

 

[lashto]

"controversy" solved?! Research project done !?
On short: spinorama is just one measurement and nowhere near enough to fully assert a speaker's quality. Harmonic distortion differences seem to do a very good job at explaining both IL10's "bad" sound and the "good" sound of its spinorama-twin M106.

 

[napilopez]

"controversy" solved?! Research project done !?
On short: spinorama is just one measurement and nowhere near enough to fully assert a speaker's quality. Harmonic distortion differences seem to do a very good job at explaining both IL10's "bad" sound and the "good" sound of its spinorama-twin M106.

Not at all 'done'! I'm personally still very dubious the differences can be explained by distortion. As I've said in this and other threads, it's easy to underestimate how much small differences in directivity and FR affect sound, and imo it's always better to look to that before other factors. Tiny differences in FR are very audible. Certainly more than small differences in distortion, in my experience.

And perhaps equally importantly, even if the difference is distortion, I'm not sure how translatable that is to the average listener who does not have Amir's extensive distortion training. There are two other people with the IL10 in this thread do not seem to be hearing quite the same thing Amir did, and who even seem to enjoy the speaker -- are their impressions of this speaker less valid? Plus they are comparing it to the JBL 530, another speaker Amir reviewed and liked.

Neither do I mean to say distortion is irrelevant. But imo there are enough differences in the spins of these two speakers that one cannot point simply to distortion as the culprit from this comparison alone. It's not like the IL10 has a crazy amount of distortion. After all, there have been speakers that exhibited similar distortion levels that amir liked too.

If we know SPL differences of identical speakers differing less than half a dB can make people prefer one over the other in blind tests. How can we expect speakers with very different bass contours, different directivity patterns, and overall different frequency response not to sound significantly different? Yes, it's surprising that Amir did not really like the IL10 at all, but his also aren't the only impressions, and I'm more comfortable pointing to the very audible difference in frequency response than the questionably audible difference in distortion.

To be clear this is not a criticism of amir, his process, his beliefs, or his ratings. His impressions are completely valid and I'm glad to have his listening tests. I'm glad we're investigating distortion further. I'm just expressing my arguments for why we can't just point to distortion as a culprit just because these spins look a little similar. It's been argued many times here already that two speakers with similar spins will not necessarily sound identical.

 

[napilopez]

Here's an experiment I proposed in the SVS thread, reposting here to continue the discussion:

"Edit: As mentioned in my reply in the infinity thread I still think differences in frequency response and directivity are more likely culprits.

An interesting comparative experiment would be to compare a top-performing speaker in both FR and distortion metrics and compare it using three settings:

1) A control with the speaker performing as intended
2) A setting which slightly alters the frequency response
3) A setting which slightly alters the distortion profile

The exact amounts of distortion and deviation from neutral FR for a relevant comparison would be difficult to determine. Perhaps the test could be designed to randomize the differences in each factor. It would be interesting to plot not just which differences are more audible, but which ones more adversely affect the listening experience. "

 

[lashto]

Not at all 'done'!
...
It's been argued many times here already that two speakers with similar spins will not necessarily sound identical.

the 'done' was just a joke. Wouldn't it be great if it was true, though?!

IMO, two speakers with 'identical' spinoramas will sound just as similar as two amps with 'identical' FR. But it'll be a very hard to prove/disprove that with any certainty. These two speakers are as close we can hope from real world spinoramas (actually closer than I ever expected to see)
If this experiment fails to produce any conclusive results, the only alternative are speaker simulations. Expensive, error prone, I don't think anyone will do that soon.

 

[tuga]

There are two other people with the IL10 in this thread do not seem to be hearing quite the same thing Amir did, and who even seem to enjoy the speaker -- are their impressions of this speaker less valid?

I'd say that unless they are trained listeners then their opinions are only valid from a preference/taste perspective.
Their critical asessment is of little use.

Also it is not enough to have high-level difference-discrimination capabilities but also to know what distortions sound like and to look for them intently. And use adequate programme. And listen long term. And be able to listen objectively, without the tint of personal preference.

 

[napilopez]

I'd say that unless they are trained listeners then their opinions are only valid from a preference/taste perspective.
Their critical asessment is of little use.

Also it is not enough to have high-level difference-discrimination capabilities but also to know what distortions sound like and to look for them intently. And use adequate programme. And listen long term. And be able to listen objectively, without the tint of personal preference.

I'm not sure I agree. How much 'training' is enough? Isn't the purpose of providing a speaker recommendation based on determining the likeliness the people receiving the recommendations will enjoy it? A trained listener can of course identify problems better -- in theory, that's the job of any reviewer too -- but the problems should be relevant to the end-user, right?

That's what I'm curious about. Is this an issue Amir had with the speaker alone in his particular setup or is this stark inferiority of the IL10 vs the M16's something almost everyone would hear? Of course, Amir can only report on what he heard, as he should. We won't know unless someone else makes the same comparison. But both of the people above listened to both the IL10 and the JBL 530 (a speaker which Amir did like), so I do think that's interesting.

I think most people on this forum are attempting some degree of objectivity in their assessments of a speaker, and I do not believe anyone can achieve perfect objectivity. They have also had time to listen to the speaker's long term, which you mention is a factor. Granted, I don't know what their opinions of the speaker are now. Maybe they've tossed the IL10's in the trash.

the 'done' was just a joke. Wouldn't it be great if it was true, though?!

IMO, two speakers with 'identical' spinoramas will sound just as similar as two amps with 'identical' FR. But it'll be a very hard to prove/disprove that with any certainty. These two speakers are as close we can hope from real world spinoramas (actually closer than I ever expected to see)
If this experiment fails to produce any conclusive results, the only alternative are speaker simulations. Expensive, error prone, I don't think anyone will do that soon.

I know you were joking =]

I do very much disagree that speakers with similar spinoramas will sound as similar as amps with similar FR though. Spins are large averages, and the component curves have a significant effect on their appearance. They reflect overall tonality, but any differences in horizontal and vertical directivity alone will have a significant effect on the sound.

So yes, these are closer spins that most, but I do not think these are really close in the way you mean it. The bass difference alone is a significant difference for comparison purposes. Of course, the real matter is the fact Amir couldn't bring himself to like the IL10, when he liked the M16's. I think the best way to assess this to have more people listen to these two speakers, but that isn't going to be very feasible. Maybe once coronavirus decides it's time to go, someone can set up these comparisons =]

Overall I agree with Sean Olive's assessment of this thread(comment on an FB post):

"I have M16's in my bedroom. As the measurements show they seem to have less distortion and the DI is lower at high frequencies. They also have a lot more bass between 100-80 Hz than the Interlude 10 so I don't know how they can speculate about distortion when the bass is not the same. "

My experience is that different in bass alone are often enough to 'color' the rest of the frequency response in unexpected ways. Hence my original point about being dubious about distortion, not to mention differences in other parts of the FR and directivity.

 

[tuga]

I'm not sure I agree. How much 'training' is enough? Isn't the purpose of providing a speaker recommendation based on determining the likeliness the people receiving the recommendations will enjoy it? A trained listener can of course identify problems better -- in theory, that's the job of any reviewer too -- but the problems should be relevant to the end-user, right?

That's what I'm curious about. Is this an issue Amir had with the speaker alone in his particular setup or is this stark inferiority of the IL10 vs the M16's something almost everyone would hear? Of course, Amir can only report on what he heard, as he should. We won't know unless someone else makes the same comparison. But both of the people above listened to both the IL10 and the JBL 530 (a speaker which Amir did like), so I do think that's interesting.

I think most people on this forum are attempting some degree of objectivity in their assessments of a speaker, and I do not believe anyone can achieve perfect objectivity. They have also had time to listen to the speaker's long term, which you mention is a factor. Granted, I don't know what their opinions of the speaker are now. Maybe they've tossed the IL10's in the trash.

People like what they like: some like Revels, others JBLs, Wilsons or Klipschs, B&Ws, Zus, LS3/5as, ESLs, single-drivers, whatever... Some people are more demanding than others, as are some types of music.
And, as you've mentioned, the cause could partly originate further upstream.

So we must make a clear distiction between preference and critical listening.
It is not enough to have others listening if they don't know how or what. Tasting is easy, spotting issues is a whole other matter.
And once you spot them you have to track down potential causes.

 

[BYRTT]

...These two speakers are as close we can hope from real world spinoramas (actually closer than I ever expected to see)...

If you talk IL10 verse M106 i say what close are they or who has told that .. also joking a bit here but think agree @napilopez it's easy to underestimate how much small differences in directivity and FR affect sound and more or less think directivity index shall be the same contour before two different speakers can sound exactly the same, for example Revel M55XC is very close in directivity index to Revel M16 but not in FR so it has to be EQed to see if can sound the same as M16.

In below animation we can see IL10 verse M106 but i also added SVS Ultra because think its closer in directivity index to M106 than IL10 and polars are normalized to highlight directivity coherence, @napilopez also mention SVS Ultra thread but admit myself had not followed discussions in that thread except for the page one review.

 

[whazzup]

If you talk IL10 verse M106 i say what close are they or who has told that .. also joking a bit here but think agree @napilopez it's easy to underestimate how much small differences in directivity and FR affect sound and more or less think directivity index shall be the same contour before two different speakers can sound exactly the same, for example Revel M55XC is very close in directivity index to Revel M16 but not in FR so it has to be EQed to see if can sound the same as M16.

In below animation we can see IL10 verse M106 but i also added SVS Ultra because think its closer in directivity index to M106 than IL10 and polars are normalized to highlight directivity coherence, @napilopez also mention SVS Ultra thread but admit myself had not followed discussions in that thread except for the page one review.

View attachment 76712

The svs' 2-10khz on-axis dip is very obvious in this comparison, as in the lack of a bump in 100hz region.

 

[tuga]

If you talk IL10 verse M106 i say what close are they or who has told that .. also joking a bit here but think agree @napilopez it's easy to underestimate how much small differences in directivity and FR affect sound and more or less think directivity index shall be the same contour before two different speakers can sound exactly the same, for example Revel M55XC is very close in directivity index to Revel M16 but not in FR so it has to be EQed to see if can sound the same as M16.

Directivity affects tonal balance.
What about other (audible) issues/distortions?

For the casual or the untrained listener, tonal balance may be all that matters but some people are more discerning and more demanding.

 

[lashto]

I'm not sure I agree. How much 'training' is enough? Isn't the purpose of providing a speaker recommendation based on determining the likeliness the people receiving the recommendations will enjoy it? A trained listener can of course identify problems better -- in theory, that's the job of any reviewer too -- but the problems should be relevant to the end-user, right?

According to wiki, a master piano tuner does an "apprenticeship of about 5–7 years". That is my (arbitrary) benchmark for "enough training" and trusted ears.
It's a good point that whatever a trained listener hears may not be relevant for average Joe. Many Joes are happy with the TV and radio speakers. I would agree with that line of thinking when talking about cheap speakers.
However, my assumption is that Joe also hears the issues but he doesn't care or doesn't know better. And generally does not (consciously) realize how bad those issues are. A trained listener doesn't necessarily have better ears, he just knows exactly what to listen for and how to best do it.
In any case, if we want to improve things and/or talk about +$1000 speakers, we have to turn every stone.

I do very much disagree that speakers with similar spinoramas will sound as similar as amps with similar FR though. Spins are large averages, and the component curves have a significant effect on their appearance. They reflect overall tonality, but any differences in horizontal and vertical directivity alone will have a significant effect on the sound.

I only have logic here, no data. Your logic is indeed 'more complete' but still not much data support.
I agree that directivity & FR issues should have the largest and most/easiest audible effects. But that does not mean that spinorama tells everything and we can simply ignore distortion, time/phase issues and generally everything else.

Of course, the real matter is the fact Amir couldn't bring himself to like the IL10, when he liked the M16's. I think the best way to assess this to have more people listen to these two speakers, but that isn't going to be very feasible. Maybe once coronavirus decides it's time to go, someone can set up these comparisons =]

Yep, I'd say that matter is real enough and worth investigating. Who knows, maybe we all learn something valuable. Or (long shot) we come up with a better speaker metric. Or just have some quality geek fun

 

[lashto]

Overall I agree with Sean Olive's assessment of this thread(comment on an FB post):

"I have M16's in my bedroom. As the measurements show they seem to have less distortion and the DI is lower at high frequencies. They also have a lot more bass between 100-80 Hz than the Interlude 10 so I don't know how they can speculate about distortion when the bass is not the same. "

My experience is that different in bass alone are often enough to 'color' the rest of the frequency response in unexpected ways. Hence my original point about being dubious about distortion, not to mention differences in other parts of the FR and directivity.

good to know that we have good eyes on this thread. And of course we can speculate, what else is a forum for?

In this case we have measured HD at about -50dB which is DBT proven to be audible. In that sense, there is zero speculation.
Is that HD enough to explain everything and/or the main cause?! I assume yes but that is indeed speculation.

And yes the bass is not the same and could have a huge influence on ear impressions. If these were Joe's impressions I would also 'blame' everything on the bass. But a trained listener should not be that easily fooled by a few dBs of bass. Moreover, the bass diffs should be EQ fixable but it looks like EQ was tried already and proved 'not enough'. So we should look for "audible issues that cannot be EQ fixed". To my knowledge, the best candidate is D. The D might also be the last stone left unturned. Spinorama&co were dissected on 30 pages already and I don't see any conclusion coming from there.
So, why not D?

 

[lashto]

..It's been argued many times here already that two speakers with similar spins will not necessarily sound identical.

"
On a more familiar level, it is now possible to explain
why two loudspeakers never seem to sound exactly the
same when auditioned using pink or white noise, even
though the measurements may be virtually identical.
In most cases the measurements simply lack the res-
oiution to reveal all of the audible resonances.
"

I.e. speakers can measure "virtually identical" and sound different. From the master himself
(just google search for that chapter, not sure if I am allowed to post a link)

 

[MZKM]

Just saw this T-Mobile commercial, just look at the thumbnail:

This seems like something pretty weird to have in the shot.

 

[SEKLEM]

This seems like something pretty weird to have in the shot.

Maybe it just seems strange to see something you’re familiar with in the shot. To anyone not familiar with it, it would probably look pretty benign and wouldn’t even register for them other than “there’s a speaker”.