Danny Richie's latest...

[Old_School_Brad]

Right for tonality, but if you’re trying to judge a stereo speaker pair for overall satisfaction level, this one speaker test won’t let you hear enough of the performance. It’s flawed and incomplete. And I don’t believe (despite what others wrote in this thread) that just because one pair measures better than another it’s guaranteed the “better” pair will provide a better overall listening experience. Some speakers can image better, provide better transient response and dynamics, plus better detail even if the frequency response and off axis isn’t as perfected as say KEF, which I owned.

I experienced it myself KEF (measured great in tests) vs my others models it was boring and didn’t entice me to want listen much. With the GR model I own now, I spend too much time listening, probably not good in a way cause I get less of the more important things done.

It looks like you've realized that neutral-measuring speakers aren't to your liking, and that's perfectly okay. It's your personal preference.

 

[Mart68]

It looks like you've realized that neutral-measuring speakers aren't to your liking, and that's perfectly okay. It's your personal preference.

The perennial problem of confusing personal preference and objective performance evaluation.

'I like these speakers so they can't possibly measure poorly! The tests must be wrongly conducted or missing something important.'

Nope. Just it's just your personal preference. Live with it.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

The perennial problem of confusing personal preference and objective performance evaluation.

'I like these speakers so they can't possibly measure poorly! The tests must be wrongly conducted or missing something important.'

Nope. Just it's just your personal preference. Live with it.

One thing I'll never understand is why this is even a thing in the first place.
It's completely okay to have preferences that differ from the majority. Everyone is entitled to their own tastes and opinions. Just avoid asserting that your choice is the only correct one while dismissing others as wrong. Many people seem to enjoy B&W speakers, for example. While they're not my preference, I don't go out of my way to tell them they're wrong. -I might ask how and why, simply out of curiosity and confusion about it.. (Just kidding! )

 

[Mart68]

One thing I'll never understand is why this is even a thing in the first place.

Lack of basic knowledge?

Not so long ago I suggested some speakers to someone who had very specific requirements.

He found a subjective review of them, the review was damning.

So I found him another subjective review that was full of praise for them.

It didn't change his mind. I said: Just trial them, you can always send them back if you don't like.

But no. Some men you just can't reach.

 

[Todd68]

Lack of basic knowledge?

Not so long ago I suggested some speakers to someone who had very specific requirements.

He found a subjective review of them, the review was damning.

So I found him another subjective review that was full of praise for them.

It didn't change his mind. I said: Just trial them, you can always send them back if you don't like.

But no. Some men you just can't reach.

I don’t think my speakers measure poorly, just not as good as the top models promoted here. It’s the attitude expressed from some here that just because a designer’s methods aren’t the same or lacking compared to a big company like JBL, REVEL etc, with state of the art testing facility they don’t deserve to be considered. I’d bet there’s talented people who DIY in a garage that can build excellent sounding speakers.

And then those polls posted on ASR reviews, people vote using only the measurement data and probably most never listened to or owned the speakers, or am I wrong assuming that?

 

[Beave]

I don’t think my speakers measure poorly, just not as good as the top models promoted here. It’s the attitude expressed from some here that just because a designer’s methods aren’t the same or lacking compared to a big company like JBL, REVEL etc, with state of the art testing facility they don’t deserve to be considered. I’d bet there’s talented people who DIY in a garage that can build excellent sounding speakers.

And then those polls posted on ASR reviews, people vote using only the measurement data and probably most never listened to or owned the speakers, or am I wrong assuming that?

Absolutely there are talented people who DIY in a garage and can build excellent sounding speakers.

And even more shocking, some of them do it successfully without resorting to selling snake oil.

 

[Purité Audio]

I don’t think my speakers measure poorly, just not as good as the top models promoted here. It’s the attitude expressed from some here that just because a designer’s methods aren’t the same or lacking compared to a big company like JBL, REVEL etc, with state of the art testing facility they don’t deserve to be considered. I’d bet there’s talented people who DIY in a garage that can build excellent sounding speakers.

And then those polls posted on ASR reviews, people vote using only the measurement data and probably most never listened to or owned the speakers, or am I wrong assuming that?

But why would you choose a second rate product?
Keith

 

[Mart68]

I don’t think my speakers measure poorly, just not as good as the top models promoted here. It’s the attitude expressed from some here that just because a designer’s methods aren’t the same or lacking compared to a big company like JBL, REVEL etc, with state of the art testing facility they don’t deserve to be considered. I’d bet there’s talented people who DIY in a garage that can build excellent sounding speakers.

And then those polls posted on ASR reviews, people vote using only the measurement data and probably most never listened to or owned the speakers, or am I wrong assuming that?

I also don't use text-book measuring speakers but I don't think that's a big deal.

Voting on speakers here is solely for judging the objective performance achieved so there's no need to listen to the speakers.

I wouldn't read too much into the voting. Some will vote on a value for money basis, others (like me) vote without taking the price into account. Really, the voting doesn't mean much, it's just a bit of fun and a way for the forum members to interact.

The reviews here just provide factual information, you can do with that what you will. Ignore it, take it into account when shopping for new speakers, or use it as the sole arbiter of what to get.

The important thing is that it is factual. Not some old man's waffling review about the 'emotion', which provides you with nothing of any real value.

 

[Todd68]

But why would you choose a second rate product?
Keith

It’s not second rate and probably put your overpriced offerings to shame. Spare me from this arrogant nonsense.

Now bring up bunch of charts and “prove” me wrong. Meanwhile I’ll sit here and enjoy my mediocre speakers.

And by the way, if GR Research is just snake oil and half as d designed, you’d think you could just ignore it and quit the complaining. Move on, you all are so smart, I’d seems a waste of time.

 

[amirm]

Right for tonality, but if you’re trying to judge a stereo speaker pair for overall satisfaction level, this one speaker test won’t let you hear enough of the performance.

Again, you are speaking as a layman as opposed to someone who has studied the research. A speaker that does well mono, will also do well in stereo. A speaker that does poorly in mono, may sound OK in stereo but not better than the other speaker. The only measurable effect in stereo is that listeners are less discriminating of its flaws, not that it magically becomes a better speaker just because it has a companion. This was all explained in the video. Subjective speaker testing is hard enough to do right, you want to optimize all factors leading to reliable results.

 

[amirm]

Here’s a question, why is there so many different driver types and quality levels when most of them (even the budget level ones) could be implemented in a design and achieve pretty good frequency response. If it’s done with low cost drivers and measures the same as a design with the very best quality drivers, at normal listening levels shouldn’t the two models sound the same?

Accurate speakers sound remarkably similar. I know because I have listened to countless ones.

That aside, component choices dictate looks, SPL capability, size, cost, and dispersion. Only the latter has a (subtle) impact on the experience. That aspect is covered in measurement.

As an obvious rule, no two speakers "measure the same." Even if the on-axis response is the same, off-axis may not be. Even if both of those are the same, distortion and how loud they can play differ. There are enough variables to leave room to build infinite speaker models.

 

[amirm]

I experienced it myself KEF (measured great in tests) vs my others models it was boring and didn’t entice me to want listen much. With the GR model I own now, I spend too much time listening, probably not good in a way cause I get less of the more important things done.

You have to remember that your sighted, subjective listening, with no formal training, especially if done in stereo, has no probative value. You can believe if of course but don't throw it at us as if it is a valid fact or argument. I can paint a gray speaker cable red and get people to say it sounds warmer now. That doesn't make it a fact.

Proper listening tests of speakers involves at least 4 being switched quickly behind a curtain. Tests repeated enough to generate statistically valid results. I am confident if we stick you in such a situation that you would not vote as you are claiming now. Again, I know, because I have attended two such sessions.

You continue to confuse your choices with arguments to win here. No one will dispute that you like the GR Research speakers you own. The problem is the validation you want to put forward. We use science and research to make our argument convincing, you give us personal anecdotes.

 

[Selkirks]

Meanwhile I’ll sit here and enjoy my mediocre speakers.

That's the spirit! Mediocre speakers can be engaging and enjoyable.

 

[Todd68]

You have to remember that your sighted, subjective listening, with no formal training, especially if done in stereo, has no probative value. You can believe if of course but don't throw it at us as if it is a valid fact or argument. I can paint a gray speaker cable red and get people to say it sounds warmer now. That doesn't make it a fact.

Proper listening tests of speakers involves at least 4 being switched quickly behind a curtain. Tests repeated enough to generate statistically valid results. I am confident if we stick you in such a situation that you would not vote as you are claiming now. Again, I know, because I have attended two such sessions.

You continue to confuse your choices with arguments to win here. No one will dispute that you like the GR Research speakers you own. The problem is the validation you want to put forward. We use science and research to make our argument convincing, you give us personal anecdotes.

Okay, now I need science to tell me what connects to musical enjoyment. If you ask me it’s your way of thinking that’s flawed.

 

[Todd68]

That's the spirit! Mediocre speakers can be engaging and enjoyable.

Just think, I could have bought the KEF towers and call it a day. I almost did buy the TOTL KEF but I’m confident I made a better choice.

 

[MattHooper]

Regarding listening in mono versus stereo:

No objection of course to the research that shows that mono listening is more sensitive for colorations. So if you want to have scientific levels of confidence, that’s the way to go apparently.

On the other hand, consumers aren’t doing science, and there’s an implication from the fact that we are less sensitive to problems or colorations when listening in stereo.

If that is how the speakers are going to be used, then it’s reasonable to audition them that way. To say: but in mono you’d notice the difference in quality slightly more, is sort of like saying you should choose the higher quality of beef for your chilli recipe, because on its own, you can tell the difference from other beef. Sure but if you’re going to put it in chili and render those differences hard to notice, that’s not exactly a selling point for the more expensive beef.

In principle then, if you were going to be listening to speakers and stereo, then stereo listening should be sufficient to see whether any anomalies or colorations are going to stand up to you.

I have seen Dr. Toole point out that, given a sound panned hard to one speaker, making it essentially a mono source, it’s possible for our brains to pick up on differences and colouration in such cases. So why not buy the better performing speaker in Mono performance, as it will perform more consistently.

That’s certainly a sensible approach.

But the relative proportion of speakers for which we have Klippel type measurements is quite tiny. And an audiophile might not want to limit himself to just those loudspeakers, investigating others for their looks, design, specs or whatever. And when they audition the loudspeakers it’s reasonable to listen in stereo - if the sound is acceptable or compelling, colorations in stereo aren’t a problem , and the loudspeakers have features they are looking for, so be it.

(personally I do like to have a speaker that performs well in mono. a number of my test tracks are mono or have hardpan mono voices or instruments, and I like to see how a single speaker handles those. It’s amazing how natural a hard panned voice can sound on a good loudspeaker.)

 

[Todd68]

Regarding listening in mono versus stereo:

No objection of course to the research that shows that mono listening is more sensitive for colorations. So if you want to have scientific levels of confidence, that’s the way to go apparently.

On the other hand, consumers aren’t doing science, and there’s an implication from the fact that we are less sensitive to problems or colorations when listening in stereo.

If that is how the speakers are going to be used, then it’s reasonable to audition them that way. To say: but in mono you’d notice the difference in quality slightly more, is sort of like saying you should choose the higher quality of beef for your chilli recipe, because on its own, you can tell the difference from other beef. Sure but if you’re going to put it in chili and render those differences hard to notice, that’s not exactly a selling point for the more expensive beef.

In principle then, if you were going to be listening to speakers and stereo, then stereo listening should be sufficient to see whether any anomalies or colorations are going to stand up to you.

I have seen Dr. Toole point out that, given a sound panned hard to one speaker, making it essentially a mono source, it’s possible for our brains to pick up on differences and colouration in such cases. So why not buy the better performing speaker in Mono performance, as it will perform more consistently.

That’s certainly a sensible approach.

But the relative proportion of speakers for which we have Klippel type measurements is quite tiny. And an audiophile might not want to limit himself to just those loudspeakers, investigating others for their looks, design, specs or whatever. And when they audition the loudspeakers it’s reasonable to listen in stereo - if the sound is acceptable or compelling, colorations in stereo aren’t a problem , and the loudspeakers have features they are looking for, so be it.

(personally I do like to have a speaker that performs well in mono. a number of my test tracks are mono or have hardpan mono voices or instruments, and I like to see how a single speaker handles those. It’s amazing how natural a hard panned voice can sound on a good loudspeaker.)Min

All I know is I tried this and the tonality is so close vs listening to both, I don’t understand the theory. I can hear the clarity and imaging potential, but play both and it’s a whole new experience, and is why stereo was developed in the first place.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

But why would you choose a second rate product?
Keith

I believe his main point is that he enjoys the sound of it, which is why he doesn't see it as a second-rate product. Why should he care if that's the sound he enjoys, even if it doesn't measure well objectively?

Issues occur when this perspective is used to criticize speakers with objectively good measurements, as well as the science and test data backing those results.

While blind testing would be ideal for a fully objective comparison, I believe it's neither practical nor essential when evaluating speakers. The audible differences and unique characteristics of most speakers make sighted comparisons sufficiently reliable in my experience.

Regarding stereo versus mono, I believe that listening tests should be conducted in the same format you intend to use, which for most people would be in stereo. This approach aligns the test more closely with real-world listening experiences.

Testing in mono, however, can often reveal more flaws in a system due to the nature of psychoacoustics. In stereo or surround sound, our brain tends to mask certain imperfections or distortions, a phenomenon known as auditory masking, where louder sounds can hide less desirable ones. This masking effect can make issues like distortion or poor speaker performance less noticeable in multi-channel setups.

In a surround sound system, for instance, even if some speakers have noticeable distortion or lower quality, the immersive experience often outweighs these flaws. Many listeners still tend to prefer the enveloping effect of surround sound over the more precise audio reproduction of a high-quality pair of stereo speakers. In such cases, the broader soundstage and spatial effects in a surround setup can create a more engaging experience, especially with movie audio. I think this is why we sometimes see home theater enthusiasts wondering why their stereo music sounds off when played through their surround sound system, and they seek advice on how to improve the stereo music performance.

In essence, while mono tests may be useful for uncovering specific flaws, they may not represent how listeners will experience the audio in a typical stereo or surround sound configuration.

 

[amirm]

Okay, now I need science to tell me what connects to musical enjoyment. If you ask me it’s your way of thinking that’s flawed.

It is the music itself which brings musical enjoyment. To confuse hardware's job is the ultimate sin in audio.

Anyway, since you are out of anything useful to say, it is time for you to go on.

 

[amirm]

I believe his main point is that he enjoys the sound of it, which is why he doesn't see it as a second-rate product. Why should he care if that's the sound he enjoys, even if it doesn't measure well objectively?

He clearly cares to convince us he is right. If all he wants to do is enjoy music, he should do that instead of posting lay opinions devoid of science over and over again.