• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Dutch & Dutch Vs Persona 9H

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Beauty or in this matter music, is in the eye of the beholder. No need to be technical it's completely emotional.

Anyone buying speakers looking technical is fooling themselfs. Do you buy music the same way?

I don't buy speakers, I make them, hence my interest in your opinion. Just saying "it's purely emotional" doesn't help much, but I understand where you're coming from.

Given you say you place no value on the technical aspects of sound reproduction, why do you EQ your system to a target curve that you say is used in studios where the music is made?
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
To get the sound that makes me happy.

And how do you think the engineers who developed the target curve you now enjoy did so? Presumably not by stabbing the dark (with blunt instruments)?
 
Last edited:

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
Speakers for home use are for enjoyment.
The happier they make you the better they are.

A bit like going on a bullet train where you might even fall asleep
Vs
Going much slower on a roller-coaster and finish giggling and smiling.

Or listening to a recording of your favourt artis
Vs
Listening to them live.
Recommended reading:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 3rd Edition by Floyd E. Toole

Floyd built a career summarizing what "good sound" is in terms of loudspeakers and measurements and described a "circle of confusion" from the recording studio to playback which interferes with our ability to hear audio as an artist intended, and even makes it impossible for there to be a standard between studios.

A synopsis can be found here:

Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by James Larson

In short, the solution starts and ends with calibrated equipment and neutral speakers at both ends. That is to say, speakers that do not change the sound by essentially applying EQ to emphasize certain parts of the spectrum. If it was meant to sound that way, it would be done on the track so everyone hears it that way.

To get the sound that makes me happy.

This tells me you prefer the same kind of sound the rest of us do and not the raw response of your speakers. Your target curve looks really good.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
This tells me you prefer the same kind of sound the rest of us do and not the raw response of your speakers. Your target curve looks really good.

Indeed it does, and by looking at the response alone, I'd be willing to bet that 9H sounds great in there. What's interesting is that ignoring the bass(dominated by room), there are speakers that measure (and thus sound) like his EQed curve out of the box, and those are the types of speakers that Toole's research showed that most people prefer, but, assuming that one is willing to EQ, does it really matter?

@Impossible (as Chromatischism pointed out), judging by your after Trinnov curve, and your "to get the sound that makes me happy" reasoning, I'm guessing you're actually part of that "most people" group that prefers neutral speakers. Most of us are ;). You're essentially using Trinnov to alter the Paradigm in such a way that it measures similar to how a Genelec(for example) would measure out of the box, and in truth, I see nothing wrong with that. The more I play around with programs like Dirac Live, Accourate, and Audiolense, the more I start to think that directivity is all that really matters. Assuming that the 9H has smooth directivity(like the Prestige measured here does), frequency response errors can be easily fixed(as you know).

Going 1 step further, if the Paradigm has smoother directivity than the Genelec, then perhaps the EQed Paradigm will sound even better than the EQed Genelec to most folks. Not saying it does, more just thinking out loud.

@BYRTT posted this in the Paradigm review thread:
mtmpenn_x1x1_1000mS.gif

The Revel is clearly the better speaker out of the box, and I'm sure that most would prefer its sound over the Paradigm. After EQ, though, I'm not so sure. To my eye, the Paradigm has smoother a directivity index. Does that make it the better speaker for those who will be using EQ? I think you can argue that it does.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Ever wondered why headphones sound much better then floor standing speakers.... Bingo, no room to correct
I haven't, because they do not, far from it in fact. I only use headphones if there is no other way to listen, like in a 'plane. At home I have several pairs of good sounding headphones but they are not close to being as good as speakers IME.

If any speaker needs compensation other than for room modes it is a poor loudspeaker IMO.

For the vast bulk of my music listening life there was no such thing as room compensation and there were lots of speakers which had an even response in room and sounded great.
It is even possible to minimise the room mode excitation to a (usually) acceptable level, but that requires specialist placement which may not fit domestic harmony or be within the skill set of the installer, then using some sort of electronics is easier.
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
I haven't, because they do not, far from it in fact. I only use headphones if there is no other way to listen, like in a 'plane. At home I have several pairs of good sounding headphones but they are not close to being as good as speakers IME.

If any speaker needs compensation other than for room modes it is a poor loudspeaker IMO.

For the vast bulk of my music listening life there was no such thing as room compensation and there were lots of speakers which had an even response in room and sounded great.
It is even possible to minimise the room mode excitation to a (usually) acceptable level, but that requires specialist placement which may not fit domestic harmony or be within the skill set of the installer, then using some sort of electronics is easier.

Agreed. My $300 JBL 308p sounds much better than any of my headphones, including the $1,600 Sennheiser HD800s. In terms of fidelity, headphones have a long way to go to catch up with speakers, imo. The best headphone response we've seen so far would likely be the worst speaker speaker response we've seen(or close to it), and a headless panther.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Very uneven response but very efficient, so they will sound tonally wrong but dynamic.
IME speakers this sensitive sound dynamic not because of any particular characteristic other than the volume setting on the amp. Low efficiency speakers often sound un-dynamic until powered enough to match the volume level (if they can take it) and most people don't because the volume control setting seems impossibly much more that they used for the efficient speaker (or the amp hasn't got enough power).
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
Agreed. My $300 JBL 308p sounds much better than any of my headphones, including the $1,600 Sennheiser HD800s. In terms of fidelity, headphones have a long way to go to catch up with speakers, imo. The best headphone response we've seen so far would likely be the worst speaker speaker response we've seen(or close to it), and a headless panther.
Don't know that I'd go that far. I have two IEMs here that on frequency response give me the full range down to 10 Hz and up to at least 16 kHz and with a balanced level throughout. I can get things reasonably close to my main system with a little bit of EQ, however I still prefer the S400's as setup in my room. Note that last part...I could say the opposite if the same speaker were haphazardly placed in another room.
 

mtmpenn

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
May 26, 2020
Messages
134
Likes
218
In the other thread, I raised a question about paradigm and sound power. Looking at the curves, it does strike me that the sound power DI curve for the paradigm speaker is more linear than many of the speakers measured on this sight, and so one possible conclusion would be that paradigm is prioritizing linear sound power above linear on-axis frequency response.

My technical knowledge is not high, but as I understand it the much more typical approach (Toole/Harmon/Revel) would be to prioritize flat on-axis response and then smooth off-axis response, which should then result in a gradual downward slope of the in-room frequency response.

What I wonder (but have not gotten around to searching the internet and/or academic papers to try to answer so I'll post it here to see if anyone can just tell me!) is whether there is explicit work on loudspeaker preference comparing the Toole/Harmon approach to a linear sound power DI approach and/or whether people have studied the effect of toe-in or various room conditions on this preference. It seems like both of these variables could have a significant impact on high frequency preferences.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Don't know that I'd go that far. I have two IEMs here that on frequency response give me the full range down to 10 Hz and up to at least 16 kHz and with a balanced level throughout. I can get things reasonably close to my main system with a little bit of EQ, however I still prefer the S400's as setup in my room. Note that last part...I could say the opposite if the same speaker were haphazardly placed in another room.

Yeah headphones do have the extension advantage, but it's just different, since you don't feel it the way you do with speakers. BTW, I was just referring to headphones that Amir has measured, not all headphones.

Which IEMs btw? I've been looking for a good IEM for my runs, but I've yet to find any that sound even decent :(. Best I've found so far is the Etymotic 4srx?(something like that, with the x being the extra bass version), but it still has zero bass :confused:, though I'm a bit of a bass head.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
In the other thread, I raised a question about paradigm and sound power. Looking at the curves, it does strike me that the sound power DI curve for the paradigm speaker is more linear than many of the speakers measured on this sight, and so one possible conclusion would be that paradigm is prioritizing linear sound power above linear on-axis frequency response.

My technical knowledge is not high, but as I understand it the much more typical approach (Toole/Harmon/Revel) would be to prioritize flat on-axis response and then smooth off-axis response, which should then result in a gradual downward slope of the in-room frequency response.

What I wonder (but have not gotten around to searching the internet and/or academic papers to try to answer so I'll post it here to see if anyone can just tell me!) is whether there is explicit work on loudspeaker preference comparing the Toole/Harmon approach to a linear sound power DI approach and/or whether people have studied the effect of toe-in or various room conditions on this preference. It seems like both of these variables could have a significant impact on high frequency preferences.
I am curious too. Clearly the Paradigms should be aimed straight ahead or with steep toe in, crossing in front of the listener, while the Revels can be listened to straight on or with mild toe in. The amount of energy sent to the walls will be different in either setup and thus reflections and spaciousness will be affected.
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Yeah headphones do have the extension advantage, but it's just different, since you don't feel it the way you do with speakers. BTW, I was just referring to headphones that Amir has measured, not all headphones.

Which IEMs btw? I've been looking for a good IEM for my runs, but I've yet to find any that sound even decent :(. Best I've found so far is the Etymotic 4srx?(something like that, with the x being the extra bass version), but it still has zero bass :confused:, though I'm a bit of a bass head.

I have very little experience with IEMs, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I've found Bose Soundtrue Ultras to have very good, neutral bass with proper low-frequency extension (verified by experimenting with test tones) and a neutral overall (un-EQ'd) tonal balance (the latter was important for me, as in many of the situations in which I use IEMs, EQ is not possible).

Before these I had tried NAD HP20 (boomy, recessed midrange, but not unpleasant) and Apple Earpods Pro (pleasing and overall neutral tonal balance, but a bit warmer in the low-midrange/upper-bass than the more-neutral and extended ST Ultras).

The only aspect of the ST Ultra sound I'm not 100% sold on is the upper treble. Although the tonal balance is overall correct to my ears, I feel sometimes that it sounds a little ragged at high frequencies, although it's hard to pinpoint what the issue might be (and of course ear canal geometry is critical in this frequency range, anyway).
 

Impossible

Active Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
147
Likes
49
Recommended reading:

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms (Audio Engineering Society Presents) 3rd Edition by Floyd E. Toole

Floyd built a career summarizing what "good sound" is in terms of loudspeakers and measurements and described a "circle of confusion" from the recording studio to playback which interferes with our ability to hear audio as an artist intended, and even makes it impossible for there to be a standard between studios.

A synopsis can be found here:

Sound Reproduction: Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by James Larson

In short, the solution starts and ends with calibrated equipment and neutral speakers at both ends. That is to say, speakers that do not change the sound by essentially applying EQ to emphasize certain parts of the spectrum. If it was meant to sound that way, it would be done on the track so everyone hears it that way.

A good set of speakers should be able produce sound with as little distortion as possible at the required listening level.

That's doesn't mean people should listen to music/recordings exactly how they were recorded.

Listen to them how you like. If you prefer more bass or mids do that.

This tells me you prefer the same kind of sound the rest of us do and not the raw response of your speakers. Your target curve looks really good.

The EQ'ed graph was what I ended up with after a play about with different curves. That was my preference. Normally I dial up the bass but I have a paradigm sub2 in this system.

Speakers are just tools that produce sound when given an electric signal. Good speakers will produce sound with as little distortion as possible at the preferred listening level.

That doesn't mean you have to listen to recordings how they were recorded. If you like more bass or mids, do that, or what ever you like.

Talking about technical points has no bearing because there's no direct correlation between them and enjoyment.
 
Last edited:

Beave

Major Contributor
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
1,336
Likes
2,737
semantic

you're

affect

tasteless

Harman

themselves

bearing
 
Last edited:

Impossible

Active Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
147
Likes
49
Thank you. And also

OCD much?

When I finish my book can you proof read it. I never did learn to spell.
 
Top Bottom