Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

[LTig]

I get the argument of stereo vs mono but my hobby is listening music. Not measuring speakers. As a listener the mono measurements have merit but not enough to evaluate the overall performance of a set of speakers in a 2-channel stereo arrangement.

That's not the point - almost all of us listen in stereo or multichannel. You just detect flaws easily in mono auditioning. In stereo flaws may hide for any reason, but believe me, if you buy such speakers eventually they will rise their ugly heads some time later also in stereo.

 

[thewas]

And the MKIIs are even better.

The 305/208 MKI are strangely partially tuned better/flatter than the MKII:

 

[Palladium]

I can assure you that they sound great in stereo as well.

I find them image much better than Kali LP-6 v2s.

 

[Oldasdrt]

Really appreciate the time and effort put into this review, I have a pair of old JBL bookshelf speakers I would love to send to you for testing, but it would cost a fortune to send to you, they weigh a ton
Thanks again,

 

[boomboxx]

This is really awesome. I was just thinking how great it would be if you could walk into an audio store and they have a setup like this to test speakers. If only it was so easy to take our eyes and preconceptions out of the purchasing decisions.

 

[OldenEars]

I love the ingenuity, I wondered if it might be better to blind fold the listener and use say, keypad scoring rather than screen the speakers?

I think science would benefit if the speakers were in a circle and the listener on the turntable

 

[Nwickliff]

1. If someone can get a Genelec to the Seattle, WA area, we'll include it. I'm not sure if @amirm has one.
2. This was something we thought about, but went back and forth on the utility--also just didn't have time.
3. Definitely!
4. Maybe we can bring a bunch of seat cushions.

Wait this was done in Seattle? Oooh, that’s where I am.

Would it be possible to add multiple subs that would stay in the mix while speakers were switched? I’m guessing the differences would be much less. Taking away the bass doesn’t seem fair or worthy because we don’t listen to music that way and if midrange is low, it should get masked by the bass as it would in real life.

 

[sejarzo]

Training the ear on the original sound is of course enormously important with classical instruments, so that you can judge it at all.

My guess is that many folks who don't listen to classical music, both small and large ensembles and in various venues, score speakers simply on "what sounds good to me" based on how they believe a multi-miked rock/pop recording should sound. I know that's what I did when I bought my first "hifi" speakers (BIC Venturi!) in 1976.

As my interests broadened, and I attended more classical performances, I almost quit using anything but classical and some small ensemble acoustic jazz to judge speakers. I know that if the timbre of instruments and overall balance isn't right, I will be unhappy with the speaker in the long run. Unfortunately, that means when I listen to rock/pop, I often wonder what the artist and producer were thinking because the tilt can vary between ridiculously dark or bright, and sometimes even on the same album. Yes, the circle of confusion is real and very big.

 

[sejarzo]

Just the opposite. The acoustics for the listener need to be stable, and the turntable accomplishes that. If the speakers were arranged in a circle within a rectilinear room, the room effects (from the listener's perspective) would be different for some speakers than it would be for others as the turntable rotated.

Jim

I assumed the OP was kidding.

 

[OldenEars]

Just the opposite. The acoustics for the listener need to be stable, and the turntable accomplishes that. If the speakers were arranged in a circle within a rectilinear room, the room effects (from the listener's perspective) would be different for some speakers than it would be for others as the turntable rotated.

Jim

Apologies I should have added a /s

 

[Steve Dallas]

I think science would benefit if the speakers were in a circle and the listener on the turntable

Starpower, in Southlake, Texas, has an egg shaped, treated listening room. Tower speakers are placed in offset pairs the same distance apart in an arc along the large radius of the egg. The listener sits in a swivel chair and can turn to face each pair of speakers. It is really cool and works very well.

 

[dtaylo1066]

Would love to see more of these speaker comparisons, especially in different price ranges and higher cost units.

Kudos to those involved for some hard and productive work.

 

[MyCuriosity]

I can assure you that they sound great in stereo as well.

View attachment 275680

I love words but I am in love with data.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I love words but I am in love with data.

Understood!

But this test is about listening.

 

[computer-audiophile]

My guess is that many folks who don't listen to classical music, both small and large ensembles and in various venues, score speakers simply on "what sounds good to me" based on how they believe a multi-miked rock/pop recording should sound. I know that's what I did when I bought my first "hifi" speakers (BIC Venturi!) in 1976.

As my interests broadened, and I attended more classical performances, I almost quit using anything but classical and some small ensemble acoustic jazz to judge speakers. I know that if the timbre of instruments and overall balance isn't right, I will be unhappy with the speaker in the long run. Unfortunately, that means when I listen to rock/pop, I often wonder what the artist and producer were thinking because the tilt can vary between ridiculously dark or bright, and sometimes even on the same album. Yes, the circle of confusion is real and very big.

That's exactly how I see it too. My impression from listening sessions with friends, at trade fairs and scene events is that a lot of people listen to music for which you don't necessarily need very good and neutral loudspeakers. In the sense that classic instruments recorded with a microphone sound more or less realistic.

BTW: I love audio gear shoot-outs and have participated in several in Europe. I think it would be great if there were reports like this in the ASR more often. But this is much work to prepare everything.

 

[Ajax]

How many people listen to these speakers outdoors on a regular basis?

Assume that you participated in both an outdoor and an indoor test. You, and most others, found that $1000 speaker significantly outperforms a $150 speaker when outdoors, but then you couldn't discriminate the difference indoors--both sounded equally good or bad, depending on one's perspective. Which would you buy?

Seems to me the goal was to determine if there was a statistically significant preference among a mixed group of trained and untrained listeners, in a reasonably typical "recreational listening" indoor environment.

By chance my main system is now outdoors, located under my patio with 2 sides of the listening area open.

Sonos Connect - Benchmark DAC2 - Buckeye Hypex NC252 - B&W AM1 - Velodyne 10" sub

IMO the sound is excellent with the B&Ws sitting on a beam 3 metres high and angled downwards They play full range with the sub set at 60Hz and facing away from the house. Reflections are therefore minimised and the sound is extremely clean with a tight muscular base. The system plays very loud without distortion.

I use the 10 year old Sonos as a streamer (only) as it is extremely stable and also bit perfect. I find the S1 app great to use as it supports both Tidal and Spotifiy connect, with everything controlled by my iPhone. I have it connected to the DAC via optical out.

The DAC and the sub are also 10 years old +. The speakers are new but they have been around for about 5 years as has the amp.

Total cost about US$2k, with everything except the speakers and amp bought second hand. Very happy boy.

This hobby is so much fun, and more so with Amir's help.

 

[sejarzo]

By chance my main system is now outdoors, located under my patio with 2 sides of the listening area open.

That's really cool. Certainly removes quite a bit of the room from the overall equation, doesn't it?

Unfortunately not an option for me. It snowed a little this morning here in NW Indiana.

 

[OldManMatt]

Very cool...love it!!

 

[MatthewS]

Suggestion: start with what you believe are the best and worst candidates and do an ABX Triangle test using just one of the tracks consistently.
1. Which of the "3" speakers is different?
2. Which of the "3" is preferred?
3. Score Raters ability to detect the different speaker.

Once you get valid results with a reliable cohort of testers who can detect differences, only then do a "shootout" tournament structure (same ABX triangle test) to do the actual speaker testing. You can accumulate scores as you do 1 v 5, 1 v 4, 1 v 3, etc.

I'm concerned that this method is actually significantly more work and it isn't clear what question we are trying to answer. I'd want to start with the hypothesis we are trying to prove, then design a tests that support or disprove that. To rank speakers with this method would require a massive amount of permutations.

Addtiinally, focusing only on one track makes it very challenging. Not every track excites all parts of the frequency spectrum and from our experience (and I think prior research) you need to run through a few different bits of material to start to zero in on a ranking. Unless you have absolutely terrible speakers in the mix, you're going to see some speakers perform differently on different material.

We also have found we tend to get maybe an hour of someone's time (not everyone is as nuts as all of us). I'd be concerned this method would take more than an hour.

Why do you think this is more efficient?

We actually end up getting 4-5 "tests" per speaker out of each listener because we use multiple musical selections. If we got 20 people, that would be 100 data points on each speaker.

 

[MediumRare]

I'm concerned that this method is actually significantly more work and it isn't clear what question we are trying to answer. I'd want to start with the hypothesis we are trying to prove, then design a tests that support or disprove that. To rank speakers with this method would require a massive amount of permutations.

Addtiinally, focusing only on one track makes it very challenging. Not every track excites all parts of the frequency spectrum and from our experience (and I think prior research) you need to run through a few different bits of material to start to zero in on a ranking. Unless you have absolutely terrible speakers in the mix, you're going to see some speakers perform differently on different material.

We also have found we tend to get maybe an hour of someone's time (not everyone is as nuts as all of us). I'd be concerned this method would take more than an hour.

Why do you think this is more efficient?

We actually end up getting 4-5 "tests" per speaker out of each listener because we use multiple musical selections. If we got 20 people, that would be 100 data points on each speaker.

I see what you mean. You can structure it the way I described while using multiple tracks and speakers to get the most out of a participant (assuming they are skilled enough). The essence is the ABX format, which is far more sensitive.

It might take a little extra time at first, but in the end the results will be much clearer. In your first pass the scores are not statistically different, so they aren’t reliably indicative of differences. I understand you screened out some participants after reviewing their scores, which is good. You might consider checking a participant’s accuracy of picking the "different" speaker after the first two pairs, giving the participant feedback if they fail to discriminate them. Sort of a mini training? Would be a big waste of time for a person (and you) to spend and hour with them if their data is worthless - or worse - is used in your analysis.