Cheapest Full Range 20hz - 20khz Speakers?

[tuga]

I would say they'll sound similar.

If you say tonal-wise I agree. But then there's the rest.

 

[richard12511]

If you say tonal-wise I agree. But then there's the rest.

Spinorama also covers directivity(though it doesn't separate horizontal from vertical), so that should be similar too.

What's the rest? Power handling and max output are probably the most audible metrics not covered by the spinorama. You've mentioned group delay and IMD, but those don't affect sound quality anywhere near as much as tonality and directivity. What else are you looking at? In a level matched test that both speakers can handle, I imagine frequency response and directivity account for like 95% of the sound. If those two things are similar, then the speakers should sound similar, even if the distortion and time elements are fairly different.

Biggest gotcha I could see that the spin would miss is a speaker who's vertical and horizontal dispersion are drastically different(like with ribbons).

 

[detlev24]

@tuga: I give up, you win!


But it might actually help (others) to understand what a 'Klippel Analyzer System' can measure to produce those pretty graphs we all(?) love to see. It does not stop at the "Spinorama" which, btw., is a standard defined by 'CEA 2034-A-2015 (ANSI)'; that finds itself under revision.

Scientific papers might help to build knowledge and one who prefers the WWW over paper books could choose to make use of, e.g., the huge AES E-Library and search for audibility or psychoacoustics related material.

Please let us come back to the OP's topic "Cheapest Full Range 20hz - 20khz Speakers?"...

 

[tuga]

Spinorama also covers directivity(though it doesn't separate horizontal from vertical), so that should be similar too.

Directivity is off-axis tonal balance.

What's the rest? Power handling and max output are probably the most audible metrics not covered by the spinorama. You've mentioned group delay and IMD, but those don't affect sound quality anywhere near as much as tonality and directivity. What else are you looking at? In a level matched test that both speakers can handle, I imagine frequency response and directivity account for like 95% of the sound. If those two things are similar, then the speakers should sound similar, even if the distortion and time elements are fairly different.

Just because things "don't affect sound quality anywhere near as much as tonality and directivity" doesn't mean that they're inauble or impact performance negatively.

 

[tuga]

@tuga: I give up, you win!


But it might actually help (others) to understand what a 'Klippel Analyzer System' can measure to produce those pretty graphs we all(?) love to see. It does not stop at the "Spinorama" which, btw., is a standard defined by 'CEA 2034-A-2015 (ANSI)'; that finds itself under revision.

Scientific papers might help to build knowledge and one who prefers the WWW over paper books could choose to make use of, e.g., the huge AES E-Library and search for audibility or psychoacoustics related material.

I can use Google thank you. And I have the Klippel's papers, and many others too.
I was hoping that you would provide one that would substantiate your stance.

You brought up Klippel in reply to a question about Spins that wasn't even directed at you.

If that were not enough, I replied that "A Spin doesn't show HD nor IMD nor group delay, only frequency response, directivity and resonances.
Soon you'll be telling me that if two speakers produce simitlar Spins they will sound the same..."

And you insisted on the Klippel. The Klippel is a measuring tool, the Spinorama an incomplete/simplistic representation of speaker performance.
I do know that the Klippel does spins, and that it performs other measurements too.
My loss.

 

[richard12511]

Just because things "don't affect sound quality anywhere near as much as tonality and directivity" doesn't mean that they're inauble or impact performance negatively.

I agree, but I never said they were inaudible. "Similar" is what I said.

I view them sorta as nice to haves. If the spins are different, I'll go with the speaker that has the better spin. If the spins are similar, then I'll go with the speaker that's better outside of the spin. A pretty spin is necessary, though. A speaker like a a modern B&W, for example, would fail my test right away, since it doesn't have a good spin.

 

[detlev24]

[...] I was hoping that you would provide one that would substantiate your stance. [...]

I could point you to Ethan Winer's book as a further reference, which is a must-have -read IMO, as well as Dr. Floyd Toole's book on sound reproduction - if this helps.

Both books would also be available from amazon.co.uk in their latest editions.

 

[Kustomize]

What about Uluwatu?

http://speakerdesignworks.com/SB6pakproject_5.html
Also $500.

 

[Shazb0t]

A Spin doesn't show HD nor IMD nor group delay, only frequency response, directivity and resonances....Could you point me to a few audibility studies of HD and IMD in the bass and sub-bass.

Would you provide us with the audibility studies that support your stances? I would like to know exactly how much HD, IMD, and group delay are audible to the human ear. I would then like to see the measurements of these characteristics for the speakers you're discussing. Then we can agree or disagree with your assertions.

Are there any other speaker measurements that you feel are more important to characterizing the sound of speakers than what's covered in a spinorama and Amir's measurements that you could enlighten all of us on? If there are, I would also expect you would provide us with audibility studies and speaker measurements for those as well. Thanks.

 

[tuga]

I agree, but I never said they were inaudible. "Similar" is what I said.

I view them sorta as nice to haves. If the spins are different, I'll go with the speaker that has the better spin. If the spins are similar, then I'll go with the speaker that's better outside of the spin. A pretty spin is necessary, though. A speaker like a a modern B&W, for example, would fail my test right away, since it doesn't have a good spin.

I would rather have a lesser Spin with lower distortion than a prety one with other audible issues. The B&W is a rather extreme example.

 

[tuga]

Would you provide us with the audibility studies that support your stances? I would like to know exactly how much HD, IMD, and group delay are audible to the human ear. I would then like to see the measurements of these characteristics for the speakers you're discussing. Then we can agree or disagree with your assertions.

You stole my point. There aren't many such studies.

Are there any other speaker measurements that you feel are more important to characterizing the sound of speakers than what's covered in a spinorama and Amir's measurements that you could enlighten all of us on? If there are, I would also expect you would provide us with audibility studies and speaker measurements for those as well. Thanks.

Amir started with an Impedance plot and a Spin.
Then added HD and (sometimes) CSD.

IMD and step response would be nice to have, as well as the FR of individual drivers. And an in-room response.
The more the merrier.

This guy produces a nice set: https://www.fidelity-online.de/neumann-kh-420-messungen/

 

[detlev24]

[...] This guy produces a nice set: https://www.fidelity-online.de/neumann-kh-420-messungen/

Those measurements originate from Neumann; the article is a description of how the 'KH 420' was developed. Some of the measurements can be found in the review(s) of the German magazine "Sound & Recording" - links in English below - and Neumann's DATA & DIAGRAMS section. The complete set of measurements gives a good overview of the loudspeakers's performance in the aforementioned categories.

There is a field for ENGLISH (GOOGLE TRANSLATE) at the top of the article. The data provided is not complete by far, though. For example, the Klippel "Harmonic distortion (relative)" graph stops at 500 Hz and roughly 2.4% [Sennheiser] - if 0 dB was their reference line. This is just for the MF driver and (target) SPL information is missing completely. The intention is to show that their Sennheiser MF driver performs better than drivers of two other manufacturers; which are not specified... rather useless information.

KH 420 review [EN]
KH 120 review [EN]

 

[richard12511]

I would rather have a lesser Spin with lower distortion than a prety one with other audible issues. The B&W is a rather extreme example.

But why? Toole’s research shows that FR and Directivity(as shown in the spinorama) are MUCH more important than distortion and those other metrics when it comes to predicting listener preference. A speaker with a great spin and bad distortion will sound much better than a speaker with great distortion and a bad spin(to the vast majority of people). Also, most of the speakers we've seen with great spins (Genelec, Revel, etc.) have also had inaudible levels of distortion and great step response with DSP. The JBL 308p is probably a good exception to focus on.

I guess you're saying that you don't agree with Toole's research? If that's the case, then why? Do you have new research that refutes Toole's research and shows those other metrics to be more important than FR/Directivity?

BTW, you said the B&W is an extreme example. I only listed the B&W because that's the brand you brought up. Can you give an example of a speaker with a bad spin but great other metrics that you would prefer?

 

[richard12511]

You stole my point. There aren't many such studies.



Amir started with an Impedance plot and a Spin.
Then added HD and (sometimes) CSD.

IMD and step response would be nice to have, as well as the FR of individual drivers. And an in-room response.
The more the merrier.

This guy produces a nice set: https://www.fidelity-online.de/neumann-kh-420-messungen/

I agree with you on "the more the merrier". I just disagree that those other metrics(IMD, step response) are more important than the spinorama.

 

[tuga]

But why? Toole’s research shows that FR and Directivity(as shown in the spinorama) are MUCH more important than distortion and those other metrics when it comes to predicting listener preference. A speaker with a great spin and bad distortion will sound much better than a speaker with great distortion and a bad spin(to the vast majority of people). Also, most of the speakers we've seen with great spins (Genelec, Revel, etc.) have also had inaudible levels of distortion and great step response with DSP. The JBL 308p is probably a good exception to focus on.

I guess you're saying that you don't agree with Toole's research? If that's the case, then why? Do you have new research that refutes Toole's research and shows those other metrics to be more important than FR/Directivity?

BTW, you said the B&W is an extreme example. I only listed the B&W because that's the brand you brought up. Can you give an example of a speaker with a bad spin but great other metrics that you would prefer?

You have misinterpreted my view. It's not that other measurements are more important than the Spinorama, they are also important and what makes a difference once you're past good on- and off-axis frequency response.

The difference between a near-perfect and a good Spinorama may be less audible than those other things that you seem to be disdaining.

Also, we have not seen any of the large Genelec or Neumanns measured here at ASR with which the toy-sized speakers cannot compete in areas other than the Spinorama.
And then there's the listening assessment (I am not referring to preference evaluation) which cannot be ignored.

It's as easy to fall pray to star-ratings as it is to Spinoramas... What I am saying is that there is more to audible speakers performance than just some frequency response curves.

And in my view there at times appears to be some bias and some corner cutting and some box ticking and some controversial interpretation of the data in Toole's research, often too small samples, untrained listeners.
If people want to look at "the book" (which by the way has been revised a few times and is full of words like "appears" and "indicates" or "implies" which express some degree of uncertainty) as the be-all and end-all in loudspeaker science that is not my problem, but I don't have to agree. Science doesn't stop there, knowledge grows with more and better research and more developed and higher performance measurement equipment (f.e. Klippel).

 

[tuga]

Those measurements originate from Neumann; the article is a description of how the 'KH 420' was developed. Some of the measurements can be found in the review(s) of the German magazine "Sound & Recording" - links in English below - and Neumann's DATA & DIAGRAMS section. The complete set of measurements gives a good overview of the loudspeakers's performance in the aforementioned categories.

There is a field for ENGLISH (GOOGLE TRANSLATE) at the top of the article. The data provided is not complete by far, though. For example, the Klippel "Harmonic distortion (relative)" graph stops at 500 Hz and roughly 2.4% [Sennheiser] - if 0 dB was their reference line. This is just for the MF driver and (target) SPL information is missing completely. The intention is to show that their Sennheiser MF driver performs better than drivers of two other manufacturers; which are not specified... rather useless information.

KH 420 review [EN]
KH 120 review [EN]

I already have those PDFs but thanks for the links anyway.
Are you sure that those measurements came from Neumann?
I don't speak German but the magazine website shows other speakers being measured as well as the resulting measurements:

https://www.fidelity-online.de/test/lautsprecher/lautsprecher-messungen/

Anyway, we are digressing. I merely wanted to point out that there are other measurements to be made (HD, IMD, step response, CSD, in-room) which will help characterise the speaker's performance.

 

[richard12511]

You have misinterpreted my view. It's not that other measurements are more important than the Spinorama, they are also important and what makes a difference once you're past good on- and off-axis frequency response.

The difference between a near-perfect and a good Spinorama may be less audible than those other things that you seem to be .

Also, we have not seen any of the large Genelec or Neumanns measured here at ASR with which the toy-sized speakers cannot compete in areas other than the Spinorama.
And then there's the listening assessment (I am not referring to preference evaluation) which cannot be ignored.

It's as easy to fall pray to star-ratings as it is to Spinoramas... What I am saying is that there is more to audible speakers performance than just some frequency response curves.

And in my view there at times appears to be some bias and some corner cutting and some box ticking and some controversial interpretation of the data in Toole's research, often too small samples, untrained listeners.
If people want to look at "the book" (which by the way has been revised a few times and is full of words like "appears" and "indicates" or "implies" which express some degree of uncertainty) as the be-all and end-all in loudspeaker science that is not my problem, but I don't have to agree. Science doesn't stop there, knowledge grows with more and better research and more developed and higher performance measurement equipment (f.e. Klippel).

I assumed you weighed those other metrics as more important because earlier you said "I would rather have a lesser Spin with lower distortion than a prety one with other audible issues.". I interpreted that statement to mean that you weigh distortion more heavily than you do the spinorama. Of course, there are different degrees of "worse", so I'm guessing that what you meant by that statement was more equivalent to "I would rather have a *slightly* lesser spin, with *much* less distortion"?

If you really do attribute more weight to the spinorama, then I don't think our views too far apart. I agree there are other things that matter outside of the spinorama that affect performance. Biggest one for me is a speaker's ability to handle dynamics. For example, my 8030c work great in my office, but they can't deliver enough dynamics to satisfy my needs in the main listening room.

I also agree that research doesn't start and stop with the research performed by Toole/Olive.

I'm curious how much weight you attribute to the spinorama versus those other metrics you listed. In my view, as long as one knows that a particular speaker can meet their required output demands, they can probably get great results 80-90% of the time by looking at just the spinorama on its own. To get that last bit of confidence, one needs to examine those other metrics and graphs(many of which Amir also provides).

 

[Shazb0t]

You have misinterpreted my view. It's not that other measurements are more important than the Spinorama, they are also important and what makes a difference once you're past good on- and off-axis frequency response.

We did not misinterpret your view. You stated it very clearly as already pointed out by @richard12511. Which leads to your next statement:

The difference between a near-perfect and a good Spinorama may be less audible than those other things that you seem to be disdaining.

As @richard12511 pointed out to you and which I presume you are already aware, the research on this does NOT agree with your conjecture. Which brings us back to:

A field that is relatively unexplored pehaps? Could you point me to a few audibility studies of HD and IMD in the bass and sub-bass.

You stole my point. There aren't many such studies.

I didn't steal your point. My intention was to make it clear to you that if your hypothesis goes against the research that has already been done (and make no mistake about it, it does) then the burden of proof lies upon you. Instead, you are trying to push that burden of proof onto the rest of us to disapprove what you believe without evidence. That's NOT how it works.

we have not seen any of the large Genelec or Neumanns measured here at ASR with which the toy-sized speakers cannot compete in areas other than the Spinorama.
And then there's the listening assessment (I am not referring to preference evaluation) which cannot be ignored.

I see, this is another example of you insinuating that the current research is incorrect. You are again alluding to "other" measurements, which we can only assume is IMD as the other things that you've mentioned are ALREADY generally accounted for in the measurements that we take (time domain nonsense (CSD, FR), HD). Again what other fairy dust attributes will big speakers have that aren't accounted for by the measurements we already take? Where are the studies backing up these attributes existence and where are the studies showing their audible importance over the measurements that we already take? You have to provide something or you have to stop making these claims.

As far as you alluding to listening assessments at the end, like a little cherry on top, we already know that the measurements we are discussing have their importance derived from controlled audibility studies. Your insistence that uncontrolled listening is somehow evidence that the controlled testing got it wrong flies in the face of what this site is about.

It's as easy to fall pray to star-ratings as it is to Spinoramas... What I am saying is that there is more to audible speakers performance than just some frequency response curves.

At this point is has to have become clear that we did not in fact misinterpret your view. You are trying to move the goalposts by insinuating things other than straight FR aren't considered here. They clearly ARE. Also considered is the importance of them as dictated by the audibility research. So again, what other "audio magic" are you talking about? Please provide evidence of its existence and importance in controlled scientific experiments.

And in my view there at times appears to be some bias and some corner cutting and some box ticking and some controversial interpretation of the data in Toole's research, often too small samples, untrained listeners.
If people want to look at "the book" (which by the way has been revised a few times and is full of words like "appears" and "indicates" or "implies" which express some degree of uncertainty) as the be-all and end-all in loudspeaker science that is not my problem, but I don't have to agree. Science doesn't stop there, knowledge grows with more and better research and more developed and higher performance measurement equipment (f.e. Klippel).

This is where you, and people of this general mentality, inevitably devolve into pure hand waiving. Playing your hand, if you will, by attempting to cast doubt on the research that doesn't agree with your unfounded assertions.

You're free to not agree with the peer-reviewed research, but it's best to keep that disapproval to yourself. Unless of course you are able to provide some alternative research (done in a controlled manner) that is able to show an error in the current methodology. However, I have not and do not expect to ever see that from you.

I'm not picking on you to be cruel. It's just that I've noticed a pattern of you casting doubt on the research and stating unverified claims as facts regularly throughout this forum. This type of subtle misinformation, even if unintentional, is dangerous to anyone who isn't familiar with audio research. You hand waive with just enough scientific terminology that you may confuse someone who doesn't know any better.

 

[tuga]

I assumed you weighed those other metrics as more important because earlier you said "I would rather have a lesser Spin with lower distortion than a prety one with other audible issues.". I interpreted that statement to mean that you weigh distortion more heavily than you do the spinorama. Of course, there are different degrees of "worse", so I'm guessing that what you meant by that statement was more equivalent to "I would rather have a *slightly* lesser spin, with *much* less distortion"?

A lesser Spin, it doesn't have to be a calamity. If the LW and PIR shows a bit of a dip in the crossover region for example. Also I would much rather have that dip than a perfect LW and PIR with a bright balance (f.e. the F328Be).

 

[tuga]

I see, this is another example of you insinuating that the current research is incorrect.

Some of it is too superficial or used overly small samples or untrained listeners or simplistic methodology.