expensive and cheap(er) speakers after correction

[edechamps]

If I take two sets of speakers, same size, same configuration (let's say 2-way and 10 inch woofer); one costs $600, the other $6000.

In audio, price is only weakly correlated with performance. I guess you meant to say "a bad measuring speaker" and a "good measuring speaker" or something like that.

now I digitaly correct them so both have the same frequencie response

Not possible. You're forgetting that a speaker doesn't have one frequency response, it has a multitude of responses depending on angle. Unless the two speakers have the exact same directivity characteristics (highly unlikely), no amount of EQ will make the speakers match at all angles.

let's limit the question to a one person sweet spot listening position

Doesn't matter. Even with a single sweet spot, off-axis response still matters because of reflections. The only exception is if you're listening in an anechoic chamber.

 

[QMuse]

In audio, price is only weakly correlated with performance. I guess you meant to say "a bad measuring speaker" and a "good measuring speaker" or something like that.



Not possible. You're forgetting that a speaker doesn't have one frequency response, it has a multitude of responses depending on angle. Unless the two speakers have the exact same directivity characteristics (highly unlikely), no amount of EQ will make the speakers match at all angles.



Doesn't matter. Even with a single sweet spot, off-axis response still matters because of reflections. The only exception is if you're listening in an anechoic chamber.

I would vote to EQ PIR of both of them and than see which one will sound better. If it is due to more favorable directivty and/or lower IMD, well so be it - they were given an equal chance..

 

[tuga]

If I take two sets of speakers, same size, same configuration (let's say 2-way and 10 inch woofer); one costs $600, the other $6000.
now I digitaly correct them so both have the same frequencie response. let's say I manage to correct even phase issues and both meassure the same. distorsion shouldn't be an issue nowadays on $600 speakers.
would the $6000 speaker still sound way better? If so, why?

If only it were that easy...

Unfortunately there's more to accuracy than just frequency response/directivity.

 

[tuga]

In audio, price is only weakly correlated with performance. I guess you meant to say "a bad measuring speaker" and a "good measuring speaker" or something like that.

Doesn't this table you produced contradict that? (I agree, if we include luxury speakers AKA high-end)

 

[daftcombo]

Take a concrete example Not to mention the acoustics of the room; here you have the Genelec 8341A at 6000 and the Elac DBR 62 at 600 do you think you can compete with an EQ ?

The Gebelec already compensates with EQ.

 

[tuga]

Take a concrete example Not to mention the acoustics of the room; here you have the Genelec 8341A at 6000 and the Elac DBR 62 at 600 do you think you can compete with an EQ ?

The Genelec 8341A has 2x 3 mono amplifiers, on-board DSP and D/A conversion.

Add those to the Elac and the price doubles or may even treble.

 

[ppataki]

I thought I would share an experiment I did approx. 6 months ago:
I bought a pair of used Avantone Mixcubes (the passive ones) - these sound "awful" for listening to music since they were not designed for that
You can google for its frequency response curve - it looks really ugly

So what I did is that I tried Dirac Live 2.x with it and wooow the result was mind-blowing. I will need to check my archives if I have done any measurements but sitting in the sweet spot and just using my ears I really was astonished; there was no more "laptop" sound and imaging became also way better - so it basically made these pair of speakers suitable for listening to music

Then I made another experiment using Logitech Z623 - they sound pretty awful without correction. Again after running a Dirac calibration most of the flaws were gone; actually I found the measurements for that, please see below

using 1/6 oct. smoothing; green is with Dirac

Waterfall without Dirac

Waterfall with Dirac

ETC (green is with Dirac)

I hope this helps answering the original question

 

[tifune]

Add those to the Elac and the price doubles or may even treble.

Verrrrry punny

 

[fredoamigo]

The Genelec 8341A has 2x 3 mono amplifiers, on-board DSP and D/A conversion.

Add those to the Elac and the price doubles or may even treble.

Yes, I agree with you. ELAC's would be a lot more expensive with amps and DSP.
I took the case of the Elac's because they're not too bad and they're 600...
I think that in case the ELAC would be active with a very good EQ they could look like the GENELEC but only in nearfield listening.
But the Elac are a very special case, I don't think there are many speakers of this price range with such good disposition.

I don't think eq can fix anything with digital correction if the damage is too deep, that's why I said at the beginning of this thread that you can't turn a donkey into a racehorse, but in my opinion eq can turn a good horse into a racehorse.

 

[dasdoing]

In audio, price is only weakly correlated with performance. I guess you meant to say "a bad measuring speaker" and a "good measuring speaker" or something like that.



Not possible. You're forgetting that a speaker doesn't have one frequency response, it has a multitude of responses depending on angle. Unless the two speakers have the exact same directivity characteristics (highly unlikely), no amount of EQ will make the speakers match at all angles.



Doesn't matter. Even with a single sweet spot, off-axis response still matters because of reflections. The only exception is if you're listening in an anechoic chamber.

well, early reflection will always make the sound bad. I have absorbtion on early reflection points. I highly doubt the remaining reflection from those will have an influence on overall sound. and if the early reflections are not treated, I also highly doubt you can make them sound good with 6k speakers.
also, listening outside of sweetspot will always sound bad because of lost stereo image. I am talking about stereo here. in a HT setup I can imagine that off axis response is of a way bigger importance

If only it were that easy...

Unfortunately there's more to accuracy than just frequency response/directivity.

Well, that is the reason I created this topic. I want to know what more is there to accurancy

Doesn't this table you produced contradict that? (I agree, if we include luxury speakers AKA high-end)

where is this list from? Is there an active speakers version?

 

[tuga]

where is this list from? Is there an active speakers version?

I took it from this topic: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...e-based-on-mzkm-preference-source-data.13522/

 

[GelbeMusik]

Yes, I agree with you. ELAC's would be a lot more expensive with amps and DSP.

To do it actively and digital together reduces the effort of development considerably. If the market prices reflect the development cost, the innovations, the many tasteful compromises, listening tests, as is said to be so, then a digitally driven loudspeaker should not be more expensive. Because with digital the development is a breeze. So much, that e/g Genelec could develop an own coaxial driver with real new features and still keep the cost down, relatively.

I think that some monitor suppliers don't ask for so much more in case the digital variant is chosen. Less than one would expect.

Vice versa to equalize a passive speaker doesn't make too much sense. One pays for listening tests targeting compromises (really?), which with readily included digital EQ would not exist in the first place.

Of course my assumptions don't hold, if, as has been argued from time to time, those compromises with passive are not always to the publics pleasing. Throw-back product floats around. But why would You buy it?

I would say, buy good stuff. Get an EQ if only to compensate the room a litte.

 

[richard12511]

well, early reflection will always make the sound bad.

I don't think this is true. Many people seem to prefer not absorbing the early reflections. Anecdotally, I found this to be the case in my office space.

 

[dasdoing]

I don't think this is true. Many people seem to prefer not absorbing the early reflections. Anecdotally, I found this to be the case in my office space.

that makes no sense. there is ambience in the recordings. and it's bigger, and more important, cleaner than the ambience in you room. you hear a mix of two ambiences with the worse one beeing dominant. also you add phase issues and distorsion: https://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

I actualy assumed that most here would have treated LP, since to me it makes no sense to buy expensive speakers before your room sounds good. you will hear more of your room than from your speakers. $100 speaker will sound better in a treated room than $10000 in untreated if they have comparable extension and colour

 

[tomtoo]

Doesn't this table you produced contradict that? (I agree, if we include luxury speakers AKA high-end)

Why i dont get it? You can get good performers at 300 Dollar and not so good at 4000 Dollar.

 

[dasdoing]

Why i dont get it? You can get good performers at 300 Dollar and not so good at 4000 Dollar.

me neither. look at cost per point

 

[tuga]

Why i dont get it? You can get good performers at 300 Dollar and not so good at 4000 Dollar.

Peference rating refers first and foremost to tonal balance.

Performance is not just tonal balance.

 

[AudioStudies]

The donkey might sound better in an acoustically proper treated room, though, vs. the racehorse in an untreated room.

Depending on the target group, the donkey might also be hiding behind the higher price tag.

That is when the donkey is more appropriately called an Ass . . .

 

[tuga]

me neither. look at cost per point

There is only one speaker costing less than 500 bucks in the top 25. It's the $160 Pioneer and it would require a pair of subs, as would most of the speakers tested.

The preference rating scale goes from 1 to 10. Only 16 speakers are rated 5 or above, the cheapest ones cost $600 and guess what, they both need subs.

 

[richard12511]

that makes no sense. there is ambience in the recordings. and it's bigger, and more important, cleaner than the ambience in you room. you hear a mix of two ambiences with the worse one beeing dominant. also you add phase issues and distorsion: https://ethanwiner.com/early_reflections.htm

I actualy assumed that most here would have treated LP, since to me it makes no sense to buy expensive speakers before your room sounds good. you will hear more of your room than from your speakers. $100 speaker will sound better in a treated room than $10000 in untreated if they have comparable extension and colour

I think whether it makes sense or not would depend on the person thinking about it. The belief that absorbing first reflections is always better is one of those myths that I'm not exactly sure how it started. It's a very pervasive belief that is opposite of what the blind tests that Toole and Olive conducted show. Most people under blind conditions actually prefer those early reflections left intact. By absorbing those first reflections, you're actually making the sound worse(most of the time). Of course, this is not what acoustic treatment companies(like the one in the link you provided) will tell you, but you must consider that they're trying to sell you acoustic treatments

Here's a section of Dr. Toole's AES paper.

“It was in this room [Dr. Toole’s Reference IEC room at National Research Council] that experience was gained in understanding the role of first reflections from the side walls. The drapes were on tracks, permitting them to easily be brought forward toward the listening area so listeners could compare impressions with natural and attenuated lateral reflections (see Figures 4.10a and 8.8). In stereo listening, the effect would be considered by most as being subtle, but to the extent that there was a preference in terms of sound and imaging quality, the votes favored having the side walls left in a reflective state. In mono listening, the voting definitely favored having the side walls reflective."\

"See the discussions in Chapter 8, and Figures 8.1 and 8.2, which show that attenuating first reflections seriously compromises the diffusivity of the sound field and the sense of ASW/image broadening."