- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,320
- Likes
- 5,596
How can a speaker exaggerate the pattern on-axis?
-
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!
Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5
- Thread starter MatthewS
- Start date
For the dip 1-2 kHz, no, it only relates if there are dips off-axis. But if you increase level a bit on-axis 1-2 kHz you will also have a bit more reflected energy off-axis. Peaking at 2-4 kHz on-axis is however not good since it will effectively enhance the dip-peak heard in-room. Better with a bit less energy. When I listen to sweep (yes I do....) I hear a quite sharp transition shift from the dip to the peak (which in part is related to ears sensitivity, but not all of it), and this may cause harsh sounding voices.
This is all IMO, after many years of listening and filter-tweaking.
And another edit: While not many heard my speakers, those who did, says it sounds "forgiving. laidback and smooth", but still having the details. And that is how I like it.
Last edited:
It's not a complete cancellation, it's just a dip.
You seem to be thinking about this from a “EQ the speaker” kind of view, which will of course affect everything no matter of the placement of the individual sound elements in the mix. But what I am talking about are different EQ adjustments for different sound object depending of how where they are panned in the music mix.
It seems like you are talking about EQ adjustments of the speaker themselves, that will of course not work to solve the problem that is a phantom-sound-specific problem.
It is a stereo/speaker problem, so what can be done in the mix is limited unless you sacrifice sound by introduce peaking in headphone use, center channel use and other listening positions, as Floyd Toole mentioned. IMO, a few things can be done when designing speakers which include on- and off-axis response. It's not a solution but a compromise.
DavidMcRoy
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2018
- Messages
- 686
- Likes
- 1,177
Re: the so-called 2K dip, without an A/B comparison most of us are lousy at noticing any issue. Our brains sort of "tune it out." It becomes part of the landscape and we don't care much about it, other than that it has the psychoacoustic effect of pushing any sound in the center father back in space. Et, voilà: a deep soundstage!
Meanwhile, a few speaker manufacturers stick in yet another dip of 2 or 3 dB at about 2.5K into their on-axis frequency response as part of their house sound, and supposedly in deference to some decades-old BBC lore about some widespread flaw in two-way speaker crossovers that got it all started. Google it. It's hilarious.
Meanwhile, a few speaker manufacturers stick in yet another dip of 2 or 3 dB at about 2.5K into their on-axis frequency response as part of their house sound, and supposedly in deference to some decades-old BBC lore about some widespread flaw in two-way speaker crossovers that got it all started. Google it. It's hilarious.
Yes, I also think the 2 kHz dip is an exaggerated problem as Toole also seems to have noticed, we adapt fast to the sound we are listening to.
Maybe we should let the main topic get back some space in the thread?
Agreed. There are several dedicated threads about this already. But this time it was not me or you that brought the stereo errors up....!Yes, I also think the 2 kHz dip is an exaggerated problem as Toole also seems to have noticed, we adapt fast to the sound we are listening to.
Maybe we should let the main topic get back some space in the thread?
I have owned the JBL 305 for about 2-3 years and have found them to be acceptable, but very music dependent. I am not sure that my Yamaha/Steinberg UR22 interface is not holdlng back the speakers. I am in hopes by years end to get a Schiit Jotumheim with the DAC as the JBL's need balance inputs. I like all of my other Schiit headphone amps, from the Asgard to the 2 Magni's I am now running the Gjallarhorn amp is a 2nd system but it is only days new.
Sorry for the long delayed response. Resonances are the dominant factors in determining sound quality and materials AND driver design (they go together) matter. Good design can effectively eliminate or at least minimize audible resonances within the frequency range over which the driver is used. Obviously, sensitivity is improved with low density materials, but that affects amplifier power requirements, not sound quality. Beryllium is an interesting material - expensive, hard to work with, poisonous, but it has low mass and high stiffness going for it - as well as a certain amount of marketing advantage. That said, some mediocre sounding speakers have used beryllium, and many superbly neutral sounding speakers have used "conventional" materials. It comes down to competent engineering, price, and amplifier power requirements. Personally it would not affect my choice of loudspeaker - show me the spinorama.
There is little experimental evidence that I am aware of relating to vertical directivity. There is no doubt that ceiling floor reflections are audible, but the best designed experiment I know of indicated that listeners were not happy when the floor reflection was removed. Humans have evolved with a hard reflective surface always under their feet. Section 7.4.7 in the 3rd edition discusses it. The folklore, though, is extensive.
Being retired I no longer am privy to design and production information about Harman products.
True, but for the price of a pair of KH80s here I can get 4 pairs of 305p.
This was a fantastic effort!!!! Thanks very much! I'll keep watching for more.
A couple of comments:
A couple of comments:
- As people have noted the low frequency extension of the 305 likely helped a lot. Whether this is significant in many home systems is a question though since subwoofers are so common.
- The Edifier vs Edifier EQ reinforces my belief that "all digital all the time" is the future of HiFi for people interested in the music (as opposed to the equipment). It's likely that it will be necessary to spend significantly less on the equipment than now to get very good sound though.
While I'm not seriously suggesting anyone doing this, IMHO the real criteria for speakers is how they perform when fully equalized to an attractive house curve (whatever that might be). Flat isn't really what most people like according to Toole. - Finally, again IMHO, if you like the 305, try the 308. Comparing them side by side (sighted), the 308 was in a different league. If you watch for the "Used Like New" ones on Amazon you can get them for amazingly low prices. I got one for $155 that didn't look like the box had ever been opened.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Flat anechoic/Klipple response is what is preferred, in a typical room that speaker will have a slope.
In his book Toole does not seem to be any sort of advocate for 'house curves' at all.
He just notes that speakers that are anechoically flatish on axis with smooth off axis have a downward trend from bass to highs in a typical real room.
This downward trend varies even with the best measuring speakers as traits such as dispersion, listening distance and room variables affect it and how it ultimately 'looks' on a graph. There is no one slope that a speaker should be forced into let alone a 'house curve' that all speakers would be forced into. It is not the 'summary' or sum of what you hear.
Maybe he will chime in as he has a few times on this thread.
Last edited:
Thanks ROOSKIE,
As requested here is a little summary I wrote a while ago for some forum or other, maybe here. It is my lazy-man way out . . .
Room EQ, an attractive marketing pitch with limitations:
The marketing of room equalization algorithms often presents the impression that all combinations of loudspeakers and rooms can be "fixed", "calibrated" or the like, by means of measurements, math and equalization. In reality, much of the "math" does not include the exceptionally complex, non-linear and occasionally capricious psychoacoustics of human listeners. A critical missing element is that humans adapt to circumstances, bringing our perceptions into acceptable territory. What this means is that the curves we measure in rooms contain information, but not all of it is directly indicative of problems. Some of the usual visual irregularities, peaks and dips, are caused by acoustical interference between and among the direct and reflected sounds. Human listeners and computer algorithms respond differently, and “room EQ” algorithms usually interpret these as problems to be solved by equalization. When the only solution is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Some problematic aspects of loudspeaker/room interaction can be addressed by equalization, and others cannot – it is important to recognize which is which. To human listeners, simple acoustical interference, especially that occurring in the horizontal plane (where our ears are) is most often perceived as a spatial effect attributable to some combination of the recording and the listening room. It turns out that listening rooms are acoustically “dead” compared to most recording venues and the resulting perception is usually dominated by the larger venues in recordings. Much evidence indicates that listeners quickly learn the unchanging acoustical attributes of a listening space, and, to a considerable extent we are able to “listen through” the room. This is what happens in live performances. If we attempt to equalize measured features that do not describe problems, we risk degrading the sound quality while believing that a better-looking curve is the solution.
Let me state now: there is no, nor can there be, a single ideal steady-state “target” room curve. The room curve is a result of a loudspeaker delivering sound to a complex semi-reflective listening environment. If that loudspeaker is a typical forward-firing design, with desirably flat and smooth on-axis frequency response, and desirably smooth, gradually changing, off-axis frequency response, the room curve in typical rooms will have a gradual, quite linear, downward tilt above about 500 Hz. This result is strongly correlated with double-blind listening tests – but it is the anechoic measurements that are definitive of sound quality, not the room curve. If the loudspeaker is not “well designed”, and many are not, especially in off-axis behavior, the steady-state room curve will not be a smooth decline. Equalizing it to have that shape guarantees nothing. The loudspeaker is at fault, and the solution is most likely a better loudspeaker. That is why, these days, it is such a powerful advantage to have anechoic spinoramas available on so many products. It takes much of the guesswork out of getting genuinely neutral sound reproduction.
That listeners adapt to the acoustic signature of the listening space is very fortunate, but as with all forms of adaptation there are limits. At a point we must turn to acoustical treatments and/or equalization to tame the most aggressive problems. We have learned something about these limits and now have ideas about what needs to be corrected and what we should simply leave alone. A knowledgeable human operator can do this, but most computer algorithms cannot, and as a result, sometimes the best sounding setting for commercial room EQ algorithms is “off”. Intelligently used, however, equalization is a powerful ally.
Loudspeakers reproduce sounds. Musicians produce sounds. Both do it in rooms. We don't feel the need to "equalize" - even if we could - the instruments and voices of live music. Two ears and a brain separate the sources from the venue, and adapt to aspects of what the environment contributes to the overall performance. The venues vary, and some are even not ideal, but we manage to appreciate the excellence of fine instruments and voices in very different acoustical spaces.
The special problem with flawed sound reproducing systems is that the flaws get superimposed on everything that is played through them. These monotonous colorations can sometimes be beyond the ability of humans to adapt, and they need to be identified and attenuated.
Therefore, the "right way" begins with choosing well designed, timbrally neutral, loudspeakers. If the loudspeakers exhibit audible resonances and/or frequency-dependent directivity issues, it is not likely that measurements in a room will reveal such problems and that equalization is capable of compensating for them. It is often the case that the solution is better loudspeakers. Fortunately these can be identified with good reliability from competently made anechoic measurements presented in a "spinorama" format, following the industry standard. Amir, on this site, and Erin, at Erinsaudiocorner.com, make such measurements and others can be found at www.spinorama.org. Several manufacturers use the method, and a few actually publish data in this form. It is now an industry standard, but it is more revealing than many manufacturers feel comfortable with. In fact, many cannot even measure it. TMI?
All that said, steady-state room curves are essential information in understanding what is going on below 400-500 Hz, where room resonances dominate. Another story entirely. It's in the book . . .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,320
- Likes
- 5,596
In-room below about 400 Hz.
On-axis above that with smooth off-axis.
If you have achieved the above, and want to take another look at the ungated room response above 400-500 Hz, use it to learn about the room’s overall acoustic and whether some room treatment or positional adjustments to speakers or listeners might be in order.
On-axis above that with smooth off-axis.
If you have achieved the above, and want to take another look at the ungated room response above 400-500 Hz, use it to learn about the room’s overall acoustic and whether some room treatment or positional adjustments to speakers or listeners might be in order.
Last edited:
computer-audiophile
Major Contributor
It always depends on many factors.
In the nearfield on the Desk, I find the JBL 305 clearly better in sound definition and well balanced.
The 308 fits well in a larger room or midfield, imo. The less accurate midrange to the 305 is still there. So much for my assessment.
The bass response of the 305 is usually just right for my listening situation and for my music. (I also have other larger speakers or listening rooms.)
I don't like subwoofers either. I've tried them several times, including also the combination of the Neumann KH120 with the Neumann subwoofer.
audiofooled
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2021
- Messages
- 617
- Likes
- 667
I hope this is not too much to ask, but Is there a correlation in blind listening tests when using a single loudspeaker on axis to compare it to another one when:
For example, loudspeaker A is flat on axis, also designed to be well behaved off axis, whereas loudspeaker B is only flat on axis but much worse off axis than loudspeaker A? Would a listener be able to discriminate the flaws of loudspeaker B if the setup is such that direct sound is dominant over the reflections? Would a chance to do so be highly dependent on the program material?
In other words, is there a chance that we give a higher score to loudspeaker B because of, say a little bit more bass extension, and only when we use stereo pairs we find out that we've made a poor selection? Would evaluating loudspeakers in mono, whilst revealing problems with resonances and flaws in on axis behavior, also be able to hide some problems off axis? Is spinorama the only reliable way to predict in room loudspeaker behavior?
Earl Geddes emphasizes the importance of loudspeaker polar response and having a flat DI at some degree off axis, ranging from 700-7000 Hz. He explains it in the video here:
Can you comment on this?
It's hard to get it right to implement subwoofers with the main speakers, but I can assure you that if you manage to get that part right you will "like" subwoofers and the resulting full-range sound that will give you. But in most cases, you will probably also need to use EQ to tame some of the almost unavoidable bass resonances that will occur in small listening environments.
I dare to say that everyone will prefer a full-range sound if all the problems are solved.
computer-audiophile
Major Contributor
I am not a newbie in this field, but came for me to another conclusion.
Indeed, sometimes it is better not to excite the room with too much low-frequency energy.
Similar threads
