• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

Et tu, PSB?

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,497
We've seen a number of companies release newer speakers that don't measure as well as older models. The latest Soundstage/NRC measurements seem to show this for the PSB Alpha P5 in comparison to the Alpha B1's results from 2006.

Although both are similar in price & size (with a 0.75" tweeter & 5.25" woofer), I see significant regressions in sensitivity (4dB!), FR flatness & THD. Off-axis FR & compression appear to be a bit worse as well. The results are formatted differently, so perhaps they're not directly comparable. But I certainly expect the NRC's methods to be more consistent than these results.

Having recommended PSBs to numerous people & gifted B1s, I am disappointed. Am I missing something?
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
I am proposing this as a hypothesis.

Loudspeaker manufacturers have a problem that as loudspeakers got better, in that they had a flatter frequency response and lower distortion, they became similar sounding, and thus harder to distinguish in quick dealer demos and HiFi shows. In order to stand out, they had to be different, so frequency responses became more ragged, with excessive HF (listen to all that detail and air round the instruments) and LF distortion (listen to that bass thump). This has given rise to something of a 'signature sound' for manufacturers, but consequently the technical performance is actually worse.

I don't have proof of this, but as evidence, I propose the frequency response of some very expensive 'boutique' manufacturers like Boenik and Zu, and even some established manufacturers like B&W.

S
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
I don't have proof of this, but as evidence, I propose the frequency response of some very expensive 'boutique' manufacturers like Boenik and Zu, and even some established manufacturers like B&W.

S

At first, I thought it was a difference in R&D budget / access to testing facilities vs "artisanal" shops like Zu.

But that doesn't explain the PSB case, who have access to the NRC, so I also have to conclude it's an intentional exercise in "house sound".
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
3,065
Location
Zg, Cro
I am proposing this as a hypothesis.

Loudspeaker manufacturers have a problem that as loudspeakers got better, in that they had a flatter frequency response and lower distortion, they became similar sounding, and thus harder to distinguish in quick dealer demos and HiFi shows. In order to stand out, they had to be different, so frequency responses became more ragged, with excessive HF (listen to all that detail and air round the instruments) and LF distortion (listen to that bass thump). This has given rise to something of a 'signature sound' for manufacturers, but consequently the technical performance is actually worse.

I don't have proof of this, but as evidence, I propose the frequency response of some very expensive 'boutique' manufacturers like Boenik and Zu, and even some established manufacturers like B&W.

S

Interesting thought - may as well be correct!
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
But that doesn't explain the PSB case, who have access to the NRC, so I also have to conclude it's an intentional exercise in "house sound".
Cost savings might explain it for some manufacturers, hold to the same target price by making things cheaper.

But in most cases I've always assumed it's deliberate. There is a comment in a B&W review in stereophile from JA that having seen their factory the treble lift could only be deliberate as they clearly have the resources to ensure it wasn't there.

I think the nature of dems lead to some impressive sounds selling better than neutral. Even more cynically you could say that dealers know deliberate errors in products are likely to bring more repeat business.
 
OP
H

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,497
I agree that "more impressive demos" can explain the treble boost from B&W, recent Paradigms, etc. The P5's response is rather weird though, so I suspect lower costs drove this design. Better bass measurements could help the analysis, since we can't really judge the sensitivity drop without considering Hofmann. If PSB's next, more expensive models are relatively neutral, this is likely about cost in the Alpha series, not sound signature.

Either way, it is unfortunate to see this happen even while JBL, Kali, Vanatoo, etc. offer improved fidelity in low-price, active monitors. That said, as the cost of electronics falls, active designs should offer increasing value.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,780
Location
Oxfordshire
I am proposing this as a hypothesis.

Loudspeaker manufacturers have a problem that as loudspeakers got better, in that they had a flatter frequency response and lower distortion, they became similar sounding, and thus harder to distinguish in quick dealer demos and HiFi shows. In order to stand out, they had to be different, so frequency responses became more ragged, with excessive HF (listen to all that detail and air round the instruments) and LF distortion (listen to that bass thump). This has given rise to something of a 'signature sound' for manufacturers, but consequently the technical performance is actually worse.

I don't have proof of this, but as evidence, I propose the frequency response of some very expensive 'boutique' manufacturers like Boenik and Zu, and even some established manufacturers like B&W.

S
Do you remember those guys demonstrating DSP crossovers at Scalford using the Linn software? I remember being horrified when they referred to the desirable frequency response target as "smile shaped"
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
BBC dip, anyone?
As I understand it, the BBC dip was to help hear HF anomalies, whilst not totally screwing up the frequency response. Something similar was used by EMI on their 801s using the 801's 'environmental controls'. This was valid as there was little if any EQ used, so nobody would try and equalise for the dip, which in any event was only some 2dB. It was particularly used for classical music recording or speech and drama broadcasting.
Later, when the BBC were dragged kicking and screaming into broadcasting live pop recordings, they used monitors like the KEF KM1 at Maida Vale or PMCs which didn't have the presence dip.

S
 

sergeauckland

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,440
Likes
9,100
Location
Suffolk UK
Do you remember those guys demonstrating DSP crossovers at Scalford using the Linn software? I remember being horrified when they referred to the desirable frequency response target as "smile shaped"
Yes, boom and tizz was something Linn was known for going back to the Kan and Isobaric.

S
 
OP
H

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,497
Stereophile came to the opposite conclusion re the PSB Alpha P5
JA may not claim any regressions, but he doesn't actually compare the P5 with the B1 at all. Or did I miss it? Stereophile doesn't measure compression or distortion, so we're stuck with the NRC there. And I'd say JA's in-room FR curves favor the B1.

FWIW, his summary of the B1's measurements: "superb measured performance for such an affordable speaker".

Also, I like how closely his results match the NRC's.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,424
Location
NYC
Made some measurements of the P5, and it largely lines up with Stereophile and NRC's, especially considering the differences in methodology.

Horizontal Response (0-75 degrees):
P5 horizontal.png


Vertical Response (0-30):
P5 Vertical.png


Effect of the grille (very minimal/might actually sound a bit better):
P5 Grille.png


Some quick thoughts. I have not heard the Alpha B1 so I can't compare how the two models compare. That said, I do have some thoughts on why the P5 measurement might look worse but not necessarily be so.

The biggest issue is that cliff around 700Hz. However, we see it largely disappears by 75 degrees off axis. and I wouldn't be surprised if it's basically disappeared in the sound-power curve. I didn't take enough measurements for a proper early reflections curve, but if I add up what I have, that hump is close to disappearing, and it doesn't seem to show in my in-room response.

On the other hand, the P5 is smoother than the B1 from 700Khz up both on axis and through the listening window, which is probably more important for "detail" and spatial cues. The B1 is messier above.
 

board

Active Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Messages
217
Likes
154
I am proposing this as a hypothesis.

Loudspeaker manufacturers have a problem that as loudspeakers got better, in that they had a flatter frequency response and lower distortion, they became similar sounding, and thus harder to distinguish in quick dealer demos and HiFi shows. In order to stand out, they had to be different, so frequency responses became more ragged, with excessive HF (listen to all that detail and air round the instruments) and LF distortion (listen to that bass thump). This has given rise to something of a 'signature sound' for manufacturers, but consequently the technical performance is actually worse.

I don't have proof of this, but as evidence, I propose the frequency response of some very expensive 'boutique' manufacturers like Boenik and Zu, and even some established manufacturers like B&W.

S

That makes sense to me, and I've actually also had the same thoughts. Wilson Audio is another example. They make some of the most expensive speakers in the world, but measure not so well. I've listened to Wilson Alexia in two different shops and liked them quite a lot, but I didn't compare them to anything, so it was difficult to judge them. I think I like a certain sound signature, and Wilson has been voiced that way.
I did, however, also listen to Wilson Yvette right after I had listened to another brand (GoldenEar) that I found a tad bright. The Wilson Yvette were not bright at all, but very dull. I ended up buying GoldenEar, just another model.

In any case, this "voicing" of products is not constricted to speakers, but also applies to amps, CD players, phono cartridges, etc.
While some hyper expensive products do measure extremely well (such as the phono preamp by Boulder, which was reviewed in Stereophile), then products like the phono preamp by Ypsilon that Michael Fremer used to use, the Zanden 5000 CD player that he called the best CD player he had ever heard, and loads and loads of hyper expensive phono cartridges, like Lyra, Zyx, Red Wing Sparrow, etc. are voiced a certain way, which is exactly why they are so expensive - you don't pay for accuracy but for a signature sound.
With phono cartridges it is impossible to make a completely flat frequency response, but the Goldring Elite and the Nagaoka MP-500 are surprisingly flat, and they're not all that expensive compared to the ones the audiophiles rave about. But hardly any "self-respecting audiophile" would choose the Goldringe Elite over a more expensive and less accurate option.
The only somewhat more expensive phono cartridge I've come across that is surprisingly flat is the Dynavector DV XX2 (€1500), and then the Dynavector DRT-XV-1T, which is around six times as expensive at €7000.

Some people do try to choose technically good products, but many like a certain sound and "sounds good to me, therefore it must be better quality, and I will scream at anybody who claims the opposite" has become the slogan for many people.
 
Top Bottom