Complaint thread about speaker measurements

[TimVG]

My point is precisely that the room is irrelevant for the design, that a LS could not be designed taking account some "Harman" typical room. The same for room modes...they affect any LS equally and even without correction ears + human DSP can take out room effect.
Then with a good design (bound by driver parameters and design options) comes some room evaluation (several rooms) and fine tuning, the LS must be the most room neutral/ independent possible (ideally) under acoustic field zone defined by design

Then I don't understand why you appear to be under the assumption that I'm somehow disagreeing with it

 

[amirm]

Anyway, the main issue remains the same:
You want the on axis response of a near field to look more like the predicted in room response of a perfect spinorama far field speaker, rather than flat.
And I didn't see this addressed anywhere in reviews of near field speakers.
Which is also why I stopped reading them altogether..

Here is an example PIR for a pro monitor:

It clearly indicates it is a far-field simulation. That tilt is as much listener dependent (as far as preference) as it is measurement dependent. Every system needs to have a global target curve to your taste. Because there are no standards for production/creation of music, it is impossible to present an exact case for one tilt being correct vs another except the general rule that we want them tilting down.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

Doesn't look like you have read any speaker manuals. I have read them. A ton of them. Most are completely useless. Most are cut and paste nonsense. Except for some pro monitors, there is no useful information in any of them. If there is information, it better be backed by real science and measurements. Not some designers idea that you have to stand on your head for them to sound good ("burn this speaker for 100 hours before use.").

But you are changing the argument anyway. You complained about spinorama. These are measurements of the sound radiating from a speaker to quantify what it does as a sound source. Other than reference axis, there is no other information needed or wanted from the designer in making such measurements.

Ultimately this is very simple: I am not here to cater to what idea a manufacturer may have to test their products. If their product is super unique, then they should provide their own measurements, controlled listening tests, etc. to establish greatness. If they do none then I am going to measure them as I have. And comment on them with common sense. There is no more you can demand from me. I am not here to do measurements and testing in a way to advantage the product. You are welcome to make comments after I test and present your case. You don't get to just dismiss the entire effort as not being good.

No, Amir. For the nth time.. I don't complain about the spinorama. It is a great tool and you are to be praised for the work you do.. I sincerely mean it.

However, you fail to recognize that the predicted in room response, which is the main result of the whole spinorama idea, is meaningless for near field speakers. Or at least it doesn't matter as much as for far field ones.
Can we agree on that?

Now, if we agree on this, is it that difficult to understand that providing the predicted in room response for near field speakers could be taken at face value by the average reader, without realizing that its importance is not that high (just for near field speakers)?
I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

Remember, Dr. Toole himself replied to me some time ago that in the case of predominant direct wave vs room reflections, the spinorama is not the tool to use that will tell you much about the sound quality.
It's tailored to evaluate a different type of listening.

Surely, you could use the spinorama to measure the on axis response. Kind of overkill, but you can..
But isn't the true value of tools like these that of making you see how close you get to a certain target response?
One can argue until the end of times if a sloped on axis target response is the most balanced sounding or not for near field speakers.. but the fact remains that the sound signature of near field speakers is not as easily predicted as the one of near field ones. They require the introduction of a new target response (whatever that might be). And I don't see this addressed in your near field speaker reviews.

 

[napilopez]

It's not like the measurement itself overestimates the contribution of the reflected sound.
It's the calculation of the predicted in room response that does.
And since the predicted in room response is, arguably, the main thing that people look at when figuring out if a pair of speakers is worthy of their attention, here's where the unfairness can happen with near field speakers. Their predicted in room response can be, and likely often is, crap.

Also,
I realize what I wrote may be seen as implying that Amir listens to near field monitors in far field. That is not what I meant and mine was just an example, to explain how not using speakers in their intended way may bring about an unfair review.

Anyway, the main issue remains the same:
You want the on axis response of a near field to look more like the predicted in room response of a perfect spinorama far field speaker, rather than flat.
And I didn't see this addressed anywhere in reviews of near field speakers.
Which is also why I stopped reading them altogether..

Understood on a couple of points, but there are a few assumptions I believe to be incorrect here:

1) "Since the predicted in room response is, arguably, the main thing that people look at when figuring out if a pair of speakers is worthy of their attention, here's where the unfairness can happen with near field speakers. Their predicted in room response can be, and likely often is, crap."

The value of the predicted in-room response, when used to evaluate a nearfield speaker, is not to say how the speaker will measure in a nearfield setup, but to say whether a speaker is designed competently. If a speaker has a good predicted in-room response, it is almost guaranteed it will also sound good in a nearfield setup. It is true a speaker used in the nearfield can get away with having worse directivity (and therefore a worse PIR) than a speaker meant for farfield use, but it's not as if the room influence completely disappears. It is still very important, even in a treated room.

2) "You want the on axis response of a near field to look more like the predicted in room response of a perfect spinorama far field speaker, rather than flat."

You absolutely do not want the on-axis response of a nearfield speaker to look more like the PIR of a good farfield speaker. Can you point me to a single speaker intended for nearfield use that has the tilted on-axis response you are describing?

I can only assume you mean "on-axis in-room." I'm not sure where the confusion stems from, but 'on-axis' as used here almost universally refers to the anechoic on-axis. The on-axis anechoic response of both nearfield and farfield designs should be roughly flat.

If you measure a nearfield speaker in-room, then it should be tilted by a few dB. But the point I am trying to get across is that if a speaker has a good predicted in-room response, then you can assume it will have the correct in-room tilt in a nearfield setup as well. The tilt of the in-room curve is directly tied to how far you are measuring the speaker from (again, if not measuring anechoically).

No, Amir. For the nth time.. I don't complain about the spinorama. It is a great tool and you are to be praised for the work you do.. I sincerely mean it.

However, you fail to recognize that the predicted in room response, which is the main result of the whole spinorama idea, is meaningless for near field speakers. Or at least it doesn't matter as much as for far field ones.
Can we agree on that?

Now, if we agree on this, is it that difficult to understand that providing the predicted in room response for near field speakers could be taken at face value by the average reader, without realizing that its importance is not that high (just for near field speakers)?
I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

Remember, Dr. Toole himself replied to me some time ago that in the case of predominant direct wave vs room reflections, the spinorama is not the tool to use that will tell you much about the sound quality.
It's tailored to evaluate a different type of listening.

Surely, you could use the spinorama to measure the on axis response. Kind of overkill, but you can..
But isn't the true value of tools like these that of making you see how close you get to a certain target response?
One can argue until the end of times if a sloped on axis target response is the most balanced sounding or not for near field speakers.. but the fact remains that the sound signature of near field speakers is not as easily predicted as the one of near field ones. They require the introduction of a new target response (whatever that might be). And I don't see this addressed in your near field speaker reviews.

We can agree that the predicted in-room response was designed for far field speakers, but as noted above, it is not meaningless for nearfield setups. Nearfield speakers can get away with worse directivity than farfield speakers but directivity is still important.

I disagree that the sound of nearfield speakers is not as easy to predict as far field speakers. If I had to bet, I think most members would say it is significantly easier to predict the sound of a nearfield speaker used in a nearfield setup, precisely because you can focus more on the on-axis than on the predicted in-room response.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

Here is an example PIR for a pro monitor:

It clearly indicates it is a far-field simulation. That tilt is as much listener dependent (as far as preference) as it is measurement dependent. Every system needs to have a global target curve to your taste. Because there are no standards for production/creation of music, it is impossible to present an exact case for one tilt being correct vs another except the general rule that we want them tilting down.

First of all, I want to thank you for engaging in the conversation. I know you are a busy guy.
I could have done without the direct attacks to my personality, education (I have quite a bit) and supposed agenda... but as I said I attribute them to having to deal with a lot of different frustrating people.
Since this is the first reply to me where you're not somewhat implying I'm lacking in some moral or intellectual way, I'd like to keep it up and continue in a more civil way from now on.. deal?

That being said..
Let's take this very measurement.
This means that these speakers are (almost) ideal to listen to in far field.
What happens if you get closer with your listening position? You start to lose bass. The response tilts up and the speakers sound more 'clinical', right?
So, if these were speakers meant to be listened to in near field (IF...) they would not sound that great in their intended application.
Most likely, since they are almost perfect in far field, I'm willing to bet they are far field speakers.. or very bright sounding near fields.

So this is exactly the case I wanted to make. Same measurement, especially when boiled down to the predicted in room response, can mean very different things is the sweet spot is in the near or far field.

 

[TimVG]

However, you fail to recognize that the predicted in room response, which is the main result of the whole spinorama idea, is meaningless for near field speakers.

By your reasoning, cinema speakers, or line arrays would need a rising anechoic response on-axis, which isn't the case as well.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

By your reasoning, cinema speakers, or line arrays would need a rising anechoic response on-axis, which isn't the case as well.

View attachment 101879

Why on earth would my reasoning imply this?

 

[napilopez]

First of all, I want to thank you for engaging in the conversation. I know you are a busy guy.
I could have done without the direct attacks to my personality, education (I have quite a bit) and supposed agenda... but as I said I attribute them to having to deal with a lot of different frustrating people.
Since this is the first reply to me where you're not somewhat implying I'm lacking in some moral or intellectual way, I'd like to keep it up and continue in a more civil way from now on.. deal?

That being said..
Let's take this very measurement.
This means that these speakers are (almost) ideal to listen to in far field.
What happens if you get closer with your listening position? You start to lose bass. The response tilts up and the speakers sound more 'clinical', right?
So, if these were speakers meant to be listened to in near field (IF...) they would not sound that great in their intended application.
Most likely, since they are almost perfect in far field, I'm willing to bet they are far field speakers.. or very bright sounding near fields.

So this is exactly the case I wanted to make. Same measurement, especially when boiled down to the predicted in room response, can mean very different things is the sweet spot is in the near or far field.

I'm not amir, but I suspect he will agree with me here. The crucial faulty assumption you are making is that the speaker's percieved sound and tonal balance will change dramatically as you change the distance from far field to nearfield. If you measure the speaker at a closer distance, then yet, the graph will begin to tilt up, but this does not mean the speaker will sound brighter.

Our ears and brain do not work like a simple microphone and graph.

For example, here is the KEF R3 measured and listened to by me in three different setups. 1 meter, 2 meters, and 3 meters, the last one in stereo.

As the microphone moves further from the speaker, and as I add a second speaker for the third measurement, the response becomes increasingly tilted. However -- and this is crucial -- the way I perceive the tonal balance of the speaker does not significantly change as I move further away from it.

In each case, it sounds like a mostly neutral speaker. For the most part, what changes is my perception is the spatial quality of the speakers, which is due to the ratio of direct sound vs reflected sound. But for a speaker with good directivity, the tonal balance remains roughly the same whether i'm listening at 1m or 3m.

 

[amirm]

However, you fail to recognize that the predicted in room response, which is the main result of the whole spinorama idea, is meaningless for near field speakers. Or at least it doesn't matter as much as for far field ones.
Can we agree on that?

No. The heart of the spinorama is the first graph:

This graph immediately told us of the unusual tuning of the treble even though this is a near field monitor. This is the only graph Harman publishes for example. So when people say "spinorama," they mean the above graph. Not PIR.

The predicted-in-room response is a later work and is auxiliary information. Most of the time I look at the above graph to make corrections to speaker response. Occasionally the problem is more visible and correct in PIR. PIR is not precisely correct for all rooms in far field either. It is a model and has limitations that the model brings. It is not pure measurement.

So no, PIR is not remotely the "main results of spinorama" or else I would start with that graph rather than the spin one I use above. All I need to judge a speaker is the above graph, not PIR. I can actually predict PIR myself from above results.

Remember, Dr. Toole himself replied to me some time ago that in the case of predominant direct wave vs room reflections, the spinorama is not the tool to use that will tell you much about the sound quality.
It's tailored to evaluate a different type of listening.

Dr. Toole is a friend and colleague. You can't be more wrong in what you just ascribed on his behalf. He would absolutely tell you to trust the above spin data for near-field monitors as well as far-field. You are not remotely close on that statement. It is true that he will tell you that we adapt to rooms and learn to hear through them as he would say. But he will follow that with saying that for that to happen, on-axis and off axis need to be similar in nature which we can see in the blue DI lines above. Spinorama is absolutely prescriptive in that regard.

 

[TimVG]

Why on earth would my reasoning imply this?

If a nearfield monitor needs tilted down on-axis response, then it seems logical a loudspeaker meant to be used from very large distance would require the opposite.

I gather from your responses that you believe the estimated in-room response is what one hears. In reality it should be called the estimated measured in room response. It is a steady state curve and not indicative of sound quality in itself. The estimated in-room response can be good in itself while the loudspeaker can still be bad. We need all of the curves. The on-axis/listening window sound is the first sound to arrive at our ears and it needs to be neutral (flat target) under all circumstances. It doesn't matter if the loudspeaker is meant to be used as near- middle- or farfield.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

Understood on a couple of points, but there are a few assumptions I believe to be incorrect here:

1) "Since the predicted in room response is, arguably, the main thing that people look at when figuring out if a pair of speakers is worthy of their attention, here's where the unfairness can happen with near field speakers. Their predicted in room response can be, and likely often is, crap."

The value of the predicted in-room response, when used to evaluate a nearfield speaker, is not to say how the speaker will measure in a nearfield setup, but to say whether a speaker is designed competently. If a speaker has a good predicted in-room response, it is almost guaranteed it will also sound good in a nearfield setup. It is true a speaker used in the nearfield can get away with having worse directivity (and therefore a worse PIR) than a speaker meant for farfield use, but it's not as if the room influence completely disappears. It is still very important, even in a treated room.

2) "You want the on axis response of a near field to look more like the predicted in room response of a perfect spinorama far field speaker, rather than flat."

You absolutely do not want the on-axis response of a nearfield speaker to look more like the PIR of a good farfield speaker. Can you point me to a single speaker intended for nearfield use that has the tilted on-axis response you are describing?

I can only assume you mean "on-axis in-room." I'm not sure where the confusion stems from, but 'on-axis' as used here almost universally refers to the anechoic on-axis. The on-axis anechoic response of both nearfield and farfield designs should be roughly flat.

If you measure a nearfield speaker in-room, then it should be tilted by a few dB. But the point I am trying to get across is that if a speaker has a good predicted in-room response, then you can assume it will have the correct in-room tilt in a nearfield setup as well. The tilt of the in-room curve is directly tied to how far you are measuring the speaker from (again, if not measuring anechoically).



We can agree that the predicted in-room response was designed for far field speakers, but as noted above, it is not meaningless for nearfield setups. Nearfield speakers can get away with worse directivity than farfield speakers but directivity is still important.

I disagree that the sound of nearfield speakers is not as easy to predict as far field speakers. If I had to bet, I think most members would say it is significantly easier to predict the sound of a nearfield speaker used in a nearfield setup, precisely because you can focus more on the on-axis than on the predicted in-room response.

You have it backwards. The value of the predicted in-room response is only in relation to when you listen in far field. It has not much value when used to evaluate a nearfield speaker.

To evaluate a near field speaker (a true near field speaker, I mean) you need a new on axis target.
We can spend a lot of time trying to figure out what that target should exactly look like. However, given the fact that no two records are recorded the same way, and that there will always be bright and dull recordings (even among the 'great' ones), and exact target definition might be a bit of a pointless endeavor.
That being said, I have tried ruler flat myself in a true near field type of scenario. It doesn't sound good.
Not bad either, but definitely too clinical.
I ended up settling for the target suggested by Mitch Barnett (and Bob Katz and many others).
I'm glad somebody else here just mentioned him, too.

I didn't mean that the sound of near field is not easy to predict from the spinorama. You can directly measure the on axis, so you can do definitely better than predicting.
But is this information clearly translated into sound balance, like the predicted in room response does for far field? I don't believe it is.
Flat on axis is still regarded as something inherently good.. when I can guarantee it isn't necessarily so, in near field. It has to be somewhat sloped down.

 

[TimVG]

That being said, I have tried ruler flat myself in a true near field type of scenario. It doesn't sound good.

Here is a Neumann KH80 measured from 50cm on a stand, away from boundaries (4m in all directions save the floor and ceiling) with no adjustments to the response.

Even at 50cm, away from all boundaries, it does not measure flat despite the anechoic measurements from Neumann and Amir proving otherwise. That's because this is a steady state measurement.

If I see "having tried ruler flat and sounding bad" that would imply that you probably adjusted the steady state response to make it flat, falsely believing you have now made the anechoic response flat.

If I were to make above curve 'flat' the following is what would happen to the anechoic on axis response (per Amir's measurement)

 

[amirm]

That being said, I have tried ruler flat myself in a true near field type of scenario. It doesn't sound good.

And I have tried countless ones and they do. So? If you want it a bit less hot at the top end, just toe them out a bit.

 

[napilopez]

You have it backwards. The value of the predicted in-room response is only in relation to when you listen in far field. It has not much value when used to evaluate a nearfield speaker.

To evaluate a near field speaker (a true near field speaker, I mean) you need a new on axis target.
We can spend a lot of time trying to figure out what that target should exactly look like. However, given the fact that no two records are recorded the same way, and that there will always be bright and dull recordings (even among the 'great' ones), and exact target definition might be a bit of a pointless endeavor.
That being said, I have tried ruler flat myself in a true near field type of scenario. It doesn't sound good.
Not bad either, but definitely too clinical.
I ended up settling for the target suggested by Mitch Barnett (and Bob Katz and many others).
I'm glad somebody else here just mentioned him, too.

I didn't mean that the sound of near field is not easy to predict from the spinorama. You can directly measure the on axis, so you can do definitely better than predicting.
But is this information clearly translated into sound balance, like the predicted in room response does for far field? I don't believe it is.
Flat on axis is still regarded as something inherently good.. when I can guarantee it isn't necessarily so, in near field. It has to be somewhat sloped down.

You haven't addressed the very important point of whether you are saying a nearfield speaker should not be flat "on-axis anechoic" or "on-axis in room." I'd like you to answer that before I respond, as otherwise we're arguing about different things.

Mitch Barnett is a member here, and I don't want to drag him into this, but I'd quite be surprised if he suggested a nearfield speaker should not measure flat anechoically.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

No. The heart of the spinorama is the first graph:

This graph immediately told us of the unusual tuning of the treble even though this is a near field monitor. This is the only graph Harman publishes for example. So when people say "spinorama," they mean the above graph. Not PIR.

The predicted-in-room response is a later work and is auxiliary information. Most of the time I look at the above graph to make corrections to speaker response. Occasionally the problem is more visible and correct in PIR. PIR is not precisely correct for all rooms in far field either. It is a model and has limitations that the model brings. It is not pure measurement.

So no, PIR is not remotely the "main results of spinorama" or else I would start with that graph rather than the spin one I use above. All I need to judge a speaker is the above graph, not PIR. I can actually predict PIR myself from above results.


Dr. Toole is a friend and colleague. You can't be more wrong in what you just ascribed on his behalf. He would absolutely tell you to trust the above spin data for near-field monitors as well as far-field. You are not remotely close on that statement. It is true that he will tell you that we adapt to rooms and learn to hear through them as he would say. But he will follow that with saying that for that to happen, on-axis and off axis need to be similar in nature which we can see in the blue DI lines above. Spinorama is absolutely prescriptive in that regard.

I can promise you that when I asked him to provide a target response in the case where the direct wave is predominant (ideally the sole contributor to the sound) his response was literally "you're on your own". If you want I can try to dig out the conversation. It's somewhere in a fb chat, on Bob Katz's page.

Anyway, the big, red flat arrow line is exactly the focus of my attention.
Too much 'goodness' value is attributed to a flat on axis response.
A different, sloping down target is required for near field (we can argue about this, but it is my experience and it directly relates to how studio monitors are corrected according to Acourate's method and Mitch Barnett's target. It also looks very similar to the predicted in room reponse of an ideal spinorama).

Of course the data in the spinorama is valid, as I said many times. It's not like near field is a magical situation where spinorama measurements are not valid for some paranormal reason.
I thought it was clear from my many comments that my issue is with the PIR->sound quality association for near field.
The direct, real measurements are as good as they come.

All in all, all this could be simply solved by the introduction of a sloped down target curve, specifically for the on axis response.
A target that only applies when the direct wave is the major contributor to the perceived sound at the listening position.
I don't even know how this got blown so out of proportion. The data is all there (of course). It's just that it's not expressly noted what it should look like, for near field speakers. It should NOT look flat. I promise you.

 

[TimVG]

It should NOT look flat. I promise you.

If you read my post above, you will find it it doesn't look like that. I also show what happens to the anechoic response when you do force it to look like that.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

And I have tried countless ones and they do. So? If you want it a bit less hot at the top end, just toe them out a bit.

Interesting. I would like to see in room measurements made with Acourate to see if the setup was truly near field.
Of course, I don't expect that to happen.. Just truly surprised to hear that.

 

[amirm]

Interesting. I would like to see in room measurements made with Acourate to see if the setup was truly near field.

What? Speakers put each side of my monitor and listened at workstation seat is not "near-field?" What is it then?

 

[TimVG]

What? Speakers put each side of my monitor and listened at workstation seat is not "near-field?" What is it then?

He doesn't seem to understand that, as I've demonstrated for him above, even if you measure in the nearfield, even in a large room away from boundaries, the room still afects the response. From what I'm gathering he measured his setup in the 'nearfield', EQ'ed it flat and believed that was the 'anechoic' response.

 

[Deleted member 16543]

If you read my post above, you will find it it doesn't look like that. I also show what happens to the anechoic response when you do force it to look like that.

I didn't reply because it simply isn't true. There's no true intrinsic good value in the flatness of on axis response.
In fact, anechoic flatness goes out the window the instant that you equalize the true speakers response to an ideal PIR target.