- Joined
- Sep 16, 2019
- Messages
- 1,193
- Likes
- 2,644
Just wait until the owners of B&W and Klipschhorn stumble over this thread ...
Maybe @amirm can promote this thread to the main page and give it some exposure then
-
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!
Binaural blind comparison test of 4 loudspeakers
- Thread starter thewas
- Start date
Maybe @amirm can promote this thread to the main page and give it some exposure then
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,414
Well I owned Quad esl 63's for 12 years. They replaced Acoustats and were replaced by Soundlabs. Any others of you who chose D own panels? So maybe even at a Harman test I'd choose panels.
Interesting test for us.
Interesting test for us.
If I had access to all of these speakers, I would then pick four songs to go with four speakers. Pick the song that stereotypically is associated with each speaker, blind everyone and then see what the preferences are
It is interesting to note where the peaks and dips are 1-5 kHz. The Revel has a weak boost around 2 kHz and more svallow dip at 3-4 kHz. Opposite that of the B/W.
Anyway very interesting trial.
Anyway very interesting trial.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,447
- Likes
- 4,805
Interesting indeed. We should run those types of tests more often. I am toying with the idea of trying with my pairs.
What would be a decent minimal setup to record speakers in stereo? Rode NT4? But I see it is out of stock everywhere right now.
Superlux S502 seems to get good reviews, is in stock and much cheaper but is rated to 40Hz only.
Zoom H series?
What would be a decent minimal setup to record speakers in stereo? Rode NT4? But I see it is out of stock everywhere right now.
Superlux S502 seems to get good reviews, is in stock and much cheaper but is rated to 40Hz only.
Zoom H series?
I had panels (MG 1.6) for 13 years before switching to studio monitors, but they sounded (in my vague remembering) more like A than D.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,414
You could buy either of these two and use your own ears or a dummy head for binaural recording.
BTW, @thewas do you know which dummy head was in use?
Amazon.com: MS-TFB-2-11849 - Master Series by Sound Professionals - New! Ultra low noise In-Ear Binaural microphones with Premium cables : Musical Instruments
Buy MS-TFB-2-11849 - Master Series by Sound Professionals - New! Ultra low noise In-Ear Binaural microphones with Premium cables: Microphones - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
www.amazon.com
Amazon.com: Sound Professionals LOW NOISE IN-EAR BINAURAL MICROPHONES - HIGH SENSITIVITY - Black Cables with Straight Connector : Musical Instruments
Buy Sound Professionals LOW NOISE IN-EAR BINAURAL MICROPHONES - HIGH SENSITIVITY - Black Cables with Straight Connector: Multipurpose - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
www.amazon.com
OP
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,867
- Likes
- 16,817
- Thread Starter
- #210
One from Head Acoustics, probably HMS II or III.
Anyone owns a Jecklin Disc? Orr knows how to build one?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,690
- Likes
- 37,414
Nothing to a Jecklin Disc. Any disc, an LP for instance isn't a bad size, placed between omni's about 7 inches apart. I've also used rectangular baffles instead of round ones. Despite what you'd think they aren't very similar to binaural however. A nice way to record which I used often when I only had two mics. It can leave a slight hole in the middle effect on imaging. One reason I made a rectangular baffle. One 8 inches tall, and 5 inches front to back worked nicely and it had less hole in the middle effect.
If you really wanted a crazy baffle use one like Ray Kimber's Isomike recordings.
Q&A: Ray Kimber
Innovator Continues to Test the Limits of Kable SHANNON BECKER: Tell us a little about your background and where you live. RAY KIMBER: I live in Roy, UT, a suburb of Ogden, UT. I have always been interested in electronics …
Beethoven's Diabelli Variations: the Finest Hour of Piano Music in the World
John Atkinson on the Recording
www.stereophile.com
Last edited:
Apparently D and A had a sub-bass boost instead of B having a mid-bass hump (my original hypothesis). I should have figured that out to be honest.
But then again i didn't expect all the other 3 speakers to be subpar.
But then again i didn't expect all the other 3 speakers to be subpar.
charleski
Major Contributor
Certainly interesting, and an example of the fact that ‘70% prefer X’ doesn’t mean that you’ll prefer it.
I went back and listened to the tracks again and, even knowing that B was the ‘correct’ choice, still found it clearly inferior to A. As an example, while the opening chords of the 7th were more thrilling from B, the rest of the track sounded harsh and disjointed in comparison to A. A was a little too restrained and could certainly use a little boost to the presence region, but B went too far by quite a margin.
I think the main message here is that all speakers need EQ (which we know) and that you need to tailor the EQ to match your own particular preference rather than sticking blindly to a particular target (which some people still argue about). The real trick is learning what your own preference really is, which can take some time to work out.
There’s clearly a ‘norm’ in the spread of preferences that matches the results from Toole (B won very comfortably), but there’s a significant spread that is much less well understood. Unfortunately there’s no money for hifi research, and it would take a fair amount to characterise the distribution properly and develop tools that could allow people to work out where they sit on the spread.
I went back and listened to the tracks again and, even knowing that B was the ‘correct’ choice, still found it clearly inferior to A. As an example, while the opening chords of the 7th were more thrilling from B, the rest of the track sounded harsh and disjointed in comparison to A. A was a little too restrained and could certainly use a little boost to the presence region, but B went too far by quite a margin.
I think the main message here is that all speakers need EQ (which we know) and that you need to tailor the EQ to match your own particular preference rather than sticking blindly to a particular target (which some people still argue about). The real trick is learning what your own preference really is, which can take some time to work out.
There’s clearly a ‘norm’ in the spread of preferences that matches the results from Toole (B won very comfortably), but there’s a significant spread that is much less well understood. Unfortunately there’s no money for hifi research, and it would take a fair amount to characterise the distribution properly and develop tools that could allow people to work out where they sit on the spread.
I'm not so sure about this. IME one just adapts to the sound of speakers one listens to regularly, and this sound signature becomes one's personal reference. Therefore it makes more sense for me to get neutral speakers and adapt to its neutral sound (to overcome one's own circle of confusion).
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2018
- Messages
- 1,447
- Likes
- 4,805
Thanks. I've ordered the Roland in-ear microphones. Inexpensive, and quick delivery from my local Amazon. We'll see where that leads me.
TheHighContemplator
Active Member
Do you know if these come with a calibration curve?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
