Can you choose a great speaker by its frequency response?

[LTig]

A little bit of fun here as was exploring Klippel data for what makes a better speaker. To keep this post simpler for now, am just going to share simple on-axis frequency response graphs of 3 highly regarded speakers that Amir has measured. While we know there is more to consider, on-axis linearity is generally considered to be a key metric. So let's see how well members can discern speakers based on it...

To make it a bit more challenging, the plots are +/- 3dB. If I used the usual SPL spread, it will be easier to figure out which speakers were chosen (as I suspect some of you may do anyway). All are plotted with the same frequency range. All source data is from Amir's Klippel testing.

So here they are:

Speaker 1

Speaker 2

Speaker 3

All of these speakers are unique in some way from a design perspective relative to each other but did not give much consideration to how much they each cost. As I suspect with many of you, my first takeaway is how forgiving our hearing must be for these to be some of the better speakers on the market. For that matter, this also seems likely why manufacturers publish a tolerance spec rather than a graph!

So please post your preferred speaker and why. Also, include why you did not consider the other 2 speakers to be as good and why.

I go for speaker 1, because of its extended low frequency range (compared to the other two)

 

[AudioJester]

Another one for speaker 1.
Sick of little toy speakers with no bass....

 

[gags11]

Given the zooming, speaker 3 will be most liniear. Speaker 1 May be a bit bright in this forum. Speaker 2 may be preferred by many here.

I would choose the one that has good off axis response and can play high SPLs with minimal distortion.

At the end of the day, I can correct few non-linearities with EQ, but dispersion, distortion and compression cannot be mitigated.

 

[gags11]

I go for speaker 1, because of its extended low frequency range (compared to the other two)

Agreed!!!
Subjectively, low FR extension is huge… HUGE. Unless these are mated to a Sub, speaker 1 is a no brainer.

 

[Jon AA]

While all these comments are valid, it's very clear that your comments are based on the assumption that the on-axis is already well behaved.

a miss-behaved on-axis with a lot of resonances always results in a miss-behaved off-axis. but a good-behaved on-axis doesn't always means a good behaved off-axis.

As a result on-axis / listening window is the biggest determinant of sound quality.

While that's certainly correct for using a speaker as-is, it's not correct for what he said about EQ. There are a number of speakers out there with well controlled directivity that leave quite a bit to be desired in their natural on-axis response. For users with EQ who intend to put some effort into tuning them, I'd argue the off axis curves are more important than the on-axis in evaluating speakers for their use.

 

[MaxBuck]

I would never buy speakers based only upon measurements. This thread reminds me why.

 

[thewas]

I go for speaker 1, because of its extended low frequency range (compared to the other two)

Exactly, if the quality of directivities of the 3 are similar and especially if EQ can be used as lack of low bass cannot really be corrected by EQ.

 

[MZKM]

I would never buy speakers based only upon measurements. This thread reminds me why.

This is just light hearted fun, using a zoomed view of the on-axis response. That alone is not enough to categorize a speaker’s sound, especially so with the zoomed view. You need the Spinorama at the least.

 

[formula 977]

No-Speaker 1: You have to like the LFR, I'm just afraid it may be the new Advent.

Yes-Speaker 2: The Hi Q FR variations make the response differences more than likely inaudible. An F3 at 52hz I can live with and I would stuff the port if possible to extend the LFR.

No-Speaker 3: F3 is too high, 115hz boost is unbearable and gradual( low Q) variations in the FR would result in a very audible and colored sound, maybe?

p.s. a great and fun idea, OP

 

[AudioJester]

I would never buy speakers based only upon measurements. This thread reminds me why.

No one would.
Whats your point in the context of this fun exercise? Or are you just preaching?

 

[Steve Dallas]

This thread needs a poll. Mark me down for speaker 1. Boundary gain will boost the bass, it has the lowest extension, and I can fix the rest with DSP.

 

[Chrise36]

My guess is:
1. KH 310
2.SMAll 2 way GENELEC or ELAC
3.HORN TYPE JBL or KEF

 

[Shat_thyself]

I remember thinking the r3 looked to have plateaued bass, so I suspect that was used to generate trace 1.

Trace 2 looks nice and consistent other than the one dip at 7k.

 

[Axo1989]

Assuming we aren't adding subs, speaker 1 has nearly-adequate bass extension, 2 and 3 do not. The graphs could be misleading if their extension is truncated by the unrealistic vertical scale and related tight vertical crop. Apart from that, speaker 1 is also the smoothest. We can't deduce dynamics, distortion, step response, stereo imaging etc from visual inspection of FR however, so the answer to the title question is consistent with Betteridge's law of headlines.

Spoiler: Stretch

 

[Eetu]

Speaker 1 for me. Seems smoothest overall with good bass extension. Has response variations that are lower in amplitude than on speaker 2 and higher Q than on speaker 3.

 

[LightninBoy]

Fascinating how the scale plays with our minds.

Based on this info alone I'd pick speaker 1. It goes the lowest and overall has the flattest FR.

 

[tuga]

I agree with @thewas . On-axis FR alone is manifestly insuficient for judging a speaker.
I would at least need 30º off-axis, better still LW, but really the most comprehensive set (on- and off-axis FR + individual drivers' FR, impedance, harmonic distortion, spectral decay, an in-room response).
Even a photo would help as it would show the topology and size of speaker and woofer/midwoofer, number of ways, cabinet edges, waveguide or no waveguide, ports, etc.

I don't use subwoofers so I'd definitely skip any small standmount, no matter how good it measures, for example:

PSB Imagine B loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 2: Measurements (from June 2009, Vol.32 No.6)

www.stereophile.com

 

[Rick Sykora]

This thread needs a poll. Mark me down for speaker 1. Boundary gain will boost the bass, it has the lowest extension, and I can fix the rest with DSP.

Agree on the poll, but did not know how to do with graphs embedded. Maybe next time.

Will compile manually for this round.

 

[Balle Clorin]

I know what Speaker 3 is because i own a pair. but i will stay shut to see what people have to say lmao.

I have a good guess what speaker 1 is too so I'm going to go with speaker 1.

If no3 sounds anything like it looks it expect it to sound problematic

 

[thewas]

No one would.

I have bought several loudspeakers and audio electronics without having listened to them just based purely on extended measurements sets and was never disappointed, mind you correctly interpreting measurements is something that takes some time effort and experience (for example to know how different directivities sound).