Danny Richie's latest...

[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.

 

[amirm]

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.

They are not so. We have no reference for what is correct. That only comes from multi-way comparison of a few speakers. If you were right, I could dispense with measuring and just listen.

 

[amirm]

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.

Testing with more than one speaker strongly pulls in room effects. This renders the results meaningless to others with different rooms.

Further, much of the spatial aspects of stereo is in the content, not in the system setup. Have a sound pan hard left. That get reproduced correctly in any stereo system.

 

[Haskil]

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.

My God, on ASR you also have to confront the annoying people who want to be right and force you to argue constantly... but they don't care. Then they will reproach you for wanting to be right all the time, or for wanting to impose your views, when no, we are never right when we say what is is, it is they who are always wrong to deny what is East. THE only advantage of these exchanges and the only reason why we waste our time is that people of good will who read them quickly form their opinion and that no one is fooled.

One of my favorite recordings is Schumann's Carnival played by Sergei Rachmaninoff recorded in Berlin in 1928: the sound is scratchy, there is neither bass nor treble, but it is sublime... because a genius is playing... The music transcends its quality of reproduction, otherwise our ancestors would no more have cried while listening to 78 rpm records than Sniper (1) the little dog would have stuck his nose in the horn of the phonograph to listen to his master's voice...
Musicality is a word to banish from any assessment of hi-fi equipment. It in the way musicians play...

Because in the days of acoustic 78 rpm, there were already more or less good devices... and no ASR to separate the wheat from the chaff.

(1) the spell checker strikes again: Nipper of course

 

[CapMan]

The music transcends its quality of reproduction, otherwise our ancestors would no more have cried while listening to 78 rpm records than Sniper the little dog would have stuck his nose in the horn of the phonograph to listen to his master's voice...

Nipper

Sniper

 

[Mart68]

Sniper's a better name.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

They are not so. We have no reference for what is correct. That only comes from multi-way comparison of a few speakers. If you were right, I could dispense with measuring and just listen.

In this case, what's technically "correct" doesn’t always match personal preferences, and that's understandable. I agree with the importance of objective measurements. It's valuable to know what you enjoy from experience and how that aligns with the data. Making this connection provides highly valuable insights.

I’m not suggesting that you, or any reviewer, can draw meaningful conclusions from in-room stereo listening experiences. This type of evaluation is only truly valuable when done in the listener’s own room. I’m not questioning your work in any way.

That said, it seems clear to me that the user in question doesn't favor speakers that perform well according to measurements. While that's a valid preference, the approach in this thread is less constructive..

 

[BDWoody]

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.

From Sean Olive (bolding mine):

"In summary, the sighted and blind loudspeaker listening tests in this study produced significantly different sound quality ratings. The psychological biases in the sighted tests were sufficiently strong that listeners were largely unresponsive to real changes in sound quality caused by acoustical interactions between the loudspeaker, its position in the room, and the program material. In other words, if you want to obtain an accurate and reliable measure of how the audio product truly sounds, the listening test must be done blind. It’s time the audio industry grow up and acknowledge this fact, if it wants to retain the trust and respect of consumers. It may already be too late according to Stereophile magazine founder, Gordon Holt, who lamented in a recent interview:


“Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me..”"

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/#:~:text=In summary, the,embarrassment for me..”

 

[Mart68]

He did also find that people could prefer a different speaker when listening blind to what speaker they preferred when listening sighted.

Which is really quite scary when you think about it.

Trouble is the practical implementation is almost non-existent. We can't easily do blind testing when choosing a speaker, and we'll listen sighted in normal use, with the bias intact.

So back to using the measurements to choose.

 

[BDWoody]

So back to using the measurements to choose.

At least to narrow things down. I bought my speakers without listening to them first, but it wasn't quite a random shot in the dark.