I believe in science!
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Danny Richie's latest...
- Thread starter Neward Thelman
- Start date
This is funny to me, on one hand I’ve heard complaints he ruins the “house sound” of speakers from trying to improve the frequency response, then on ASR the complaints are he doesn’t know how to measure properly so all his designs are probably mediocre and bested from cheaper main stream brands. Of course from people who never owned any of his best designs.
And now, maybe his speakers can sound good, but only in a good room. So maybe the speakers are just mediocre and it’s the room!
And now, maybe his speakers can sound good, but only in a good room. So maybe the speakers are just mediocre and it’s the room!
Last edited:
I suspect you may be missing a key element here. Despite getting a positive recommendation on his X-LS Encore review, Danny wanted Amir to review a version with his pricey crossover upgrades. Initially Danny agreed to supply a review sample but later backed out and claimed Amir’s listening conditions (mainly his room and mono listening) would not allow his mods to be heard.
Nobody reasonable argues against room influences, but it has only been Danny that argued that the room had to be special to hear how exceptional his speakers are. It is Danny who does not supply his “best” speakers to any reviewer that he cannot influence. Clearly if Danny wanted, he could send his speakers for Erin to review, but he does not.
His measurements themselves aren't bad, per se - but they are overly smoothed and they could probably do with being stitched to nearfield measurements for below ~300hz to allow for higher resolution.
You can’t hear spatial cues, imaging and soundstage and overall how well the speakers sound if you only listen to one speaker. How could anyone argue against that? If one doesn’t make an attempt to try and optimize the speakers positioning (which also matters a lot) you can’t hear the potential.
I don’t know anything about Amir’s room, but if there’s no attention to room treatments I wouldn’t expect to hear much of a difference, if the room reflections swamps the sound.
The room reflections, dampening and stuff is what you are hearing in a room with 2 speakers. With one speaker the listener can hear the speaker and not the room reflections like a stereo setup provides. One speaker is better for analyzing a speaker.
I should clarify: one speaker is a much better way to check for tonality. It's not a good way to check for multi-channel effects (including stereo).
But with that said, spatial cues and imaging and soundstage are all mostly the result of placement and room:speaker interaction.
But with that said, spatial cues and imaging and soundstage are all mostly the result of placement and room:speaker interaction.
If you extended this argument further, the surround sound folks would argue even more speakers are needed. Do you think you hear imaging the same way as the reviewer? Should reviewers always be under 30 and tested for whether they can hear soundstage? We may not have measurements that are well understood for the some of the things you mention, but we definitely have an audio segment that will make claims that they are not measurable (while not offering any method to consistently capture them). Being able to claim mystical causes for things we hear is perpetuated by some in the industry that prefer the consumer to think there is some magic involved here. You have said you have CBT24s and so you know they are way more time-aligned and linear phase than most speakers. Fine if you prefer how GR speakers sound but cannot claim it is because they are better in time alignment or phase (as Danny would claim is a requirement).
The fact "you can't hear imaging" in mono is more about the number of sources needed by our hearing rather than the speaker. I have heard some euphonic images created by what most would consider to be mediocre speakers (at least by today's standards). So, if you have not already, please review the following...
Speaker Testing: why mono is better
This topic of "why Amir tests speakers in mono" keeps coming up. I must have explained that a hundred times in text. Most of you probably know why. But I thought I do a video that covers the research and explains it all. Here it is: References...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Last edited:
Along with the lack of bass measurement, the major issue I see is the scaling he uses. It is really for his design purposes but too easily misleads the more casual observer that the FR response is much worse (or sometimes better) than other (correctly scaled) measurements. Also, he either does not understand or often misrepresents what is desirable off-axis behavior.
So far, we have one older GR speaker that measured and performed decently. We also have a couple of other major misses. As I mentioned earlier, Danny's unwillingness to provide review samples does not lend to his credibility.
Last edited:
So are all decent quality speakers capable of reproducing these aspects of sound at the same quality level? If I purchase the best measuring pair I can afford, the rest is just how well my room and speakers are set up?
I’d rather judge the tone balance while listening in stereo, cause that’s how I’ll use them. I guess if you want to compare two different speakers from switching the balance control left and right it could tell you something, but then each speaker would need to placed for best response, probably different locations.
The CBT24 don’t sound as good at higher volume levels compared to the GR, causing fatigue, also could never get the treble and midrange to sound balanced. The imaging is good though, and dynamics top notch.If you extended this argument further, the surround sound folks would argue even more speakers are needed. Do you think you hear imaging the same way as the reviewer? Should reviewers always be under 30 and tested for whether they can hear soundstage? We may not have measurements that are well understood for the some of the things you mention, but we definitely have an audio segment that will make claims that they are not measurable (while not offering any method to equitably capture them). Being able to claim mystical causes for things we hear is perpetuated by some in the industry that prefer the consumer to think there is some magic involved here. You have said you have CBT24s and so you know they are way more time-aligned and linear phase than most speakers. Fine if you prefer how GR speakers sound but cannot claim it is because they are better in time alignment or phase (as Danny would claim is a requirement).
The fact "you can't hear imaging" in mono is more about the number of sources needed by our hearing rather than the speaker. I have heard some euphonic images created by what most would consider to be mediocre speakers (at least by today's standards). So, if you have not already, please review the following...
Speaker Testing: why mono is better
This topic of "why Amir tests speakers in mono" keeps coming up. I must have explained that a hundred times in text. Most of you probably know why. But I thought I do a video that covers the research and explains it all. Here it is: References...
Vergiliusma
Member
To some degree yes, because of different speaker directivity.
For the spatial aspects in stereo, you also have to take into account the recording and how well-matched the two speakers are.
Yes, yes and yes.
I have and still own his speakers. He doesn't measure them properly and I have shown this. Here is an example you could have easily found: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...research-lgk-2-0-speaker-review-a-joke.34783/
This is proper measurement:
This is not:
It only starts at 200 Hz and is heavily smoothed as I have marked. How do you hide problems in frequency response? Smooth them! How do you avoid showing issues in bass response? Don't show that response at all!
Danny doesn't show measurements for distortion. If he had, he would have realized the failure in the design:
86 dBSPL should be walk in the park for any speaker you buy let alone anything called "little giant killer."
Danny loves to show waterfall tests results. Here is mine:
It shows many resonances or as Danny calls "stored energy." His measurements are this:
Much cleaner, yes? Or is it? Here is my measurement again if I change the parameters to hide the resonances:
In listening tests, this was the worst performing speaker I have ever tested. I suggest you watch the video I did on this failing design, both objectively and subjectively:
All in all, I must have spent over $2,000 on his products for testing. All paid at retail prices with Danny not providing a cent of discount let alone industry accommodation pricing.
We also have the disaster which was the X-Voce. Speaker that has massive cancellation in upper bass/midrange: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...v123-gr-research-x-voce-speaker-review.49563/
Not only this, but the man seriously lacks ethics. You can read the above review thread on how he misled his customers on real problems of that speakers. In a thread about it on another forum, he repeatedly deleted my and other posts and eventually had the admin completely delete the thread. That forum sells that part of their site to companies and they can do whatever they want. To this day, he has not owned up to serious design flaws in that speaker, not has compensated anyone with a fix.
Don't go make claims like this or grab uninformed talking points. We speak with evidence.
And that would be what a layman would do, rather than someone informed of research which clearly shows why testing for tonality is superior in mono vs stereo:
So does Erin have a room set up for reviewing speakers? I've never bothered with anyones opinions on "how they sound" if they are not in a treated room and there is at least a week of tinkering/placement after measurements. I use the tools provided THEN to listen to speakers. I've had treated rooms to one degree or the other for over
40 years. It shows me how a speaker can and should sound. Usually depending on the type of speaker, how the drivers are arranged and attention to detail are what
sell me on a speaker.
I've owned LS6s. No amount of treatment or placement fixed the fact they needed a gymnasium to sound decent and WHO treats a whole gym? Room design plays a
HUGE part in Open Baffle no matter who designs the cabinet.
I have never found any OB that was truly accurate and I have searched the world over. I'll admit they sure are FUN to listen to and in some cases quit pleasing with
the right pairing of power amps. I'm one of those guys that loves well-made valve amps and the ability to use a variety of pre and driver valves to color the sound
to my liking. EX: I owned Infinity IRS Betas for 15+ years. They excelled with amps like Mcintosh, AR, Cary and a few others on the monitor section. They also required
a great SS/servo amp for the bass columns. They required a LOT of space and a VERY well treated room to appreciate the way the speaker was designed. Total
immersion and in the right environment absolutely wonderful to listen to.
Their big brothers on the other hand (in my opinion) Vs never did peak my fancy much like the RS1As or Bs.
Regards
AFAIK he does, and he plays with placement, toe-in etc a lot.
Similar threads
