Horn Speakers - Is it me or.......

[MAB]

I don't agree with much you say, but I'll pick out this one sentence. In my own listening room, I can (and sadly have) demonstrated that your claim is totally incorrect.

A few years ago, when looking at replacing my speakers, I explored the idea of switching to electrostatics after visiting a friend's system and being highly impressed. More research led me to arrange a convincing showroom demo of the widely well-reviewed Martin Logan 13A Expression speakers - much costlier speakers than my friend's big Quads.

Stupidly, I bought these speakers without a home demo, but it was quickly obvious that these speakers could not cope with my room, whereas my ageing horns excelled there. The MLs were sold at a big loss and I upgraded to bigger, better and newer horns. I've since established the reason the electrostatics were so disappointing, despite the efforts of the UK distributor and Anthem DSP.

In my view the most important decision when considering speakers is carefully choosing the most appropriate TYPE of speaker for the room it will be working in. That's why I totally disagree with your claim above. It's demonstrably wrong, as I’ve learnt to my cost.

Or you bought a bad sounding set of speakers based on sighted and biased listening, just as Jim described happens repeatedly. I hope you appreciate the irony of your post.

 

[Newman]

I don't agree with much you say, but I'll pick out this one sentence. In my own listening room, I can (and sadly have) demonstrated that your claim is totally incorrect.

A few years ago, when looking at replacing my speakers, I explored the idea of switching to electrostatics after visiting a friend's system and being highly impressed. More research led me to arrange a convincing showroom demo of the widely well-reviewed Martin Logan 13A Expression speakers - much costlier speakers than my friend's big Quads.

Stupidly, I bought these speakers without a home demo, but it was quickly obvious that these speakers could not cope with my room, whereas my ageing horns excelled there. The MLs were sold at a big loss and I upgraded to bigger, better and newer horns. I've since established the reason the electrostatics were so disappointing, despite the efforts of the UK distributor and Anthem DSP.

In my view the most important decision when considering speakers is carefully choosing the most appropriate TYPE of speaker for the room it will be working in. That's why I totally disagree with your claim above. It's demonstrably wrong, as I’ve learnt to my cost.

You see, anecdotes like this will be better received on other audio forums, but here, we can see the severe problems with sighted listening anecdotes, and amateur sleuthing.

If you think you proved, to our satisfaction, that you have a lesson for us, and it is about TYPE of speaker..... then I feel compelled to ask a question: which editions of Floyd Toole's book have you read and then thrown in the bin in disgust?

PS I hope you enjoy my 'light hearted tone' as much as we enjoy yours.

 

[Jim Taylor]

With all due respect, I would disagree with that. There is a reason why in the recording world there are nearfield speakers, midfield speakers, main monitors and sound reinforcement systems. There is narrow dispersion and wide dispersion and spherical as well as cylindrical wave emanation, all of which can be frequency-dependent, or not, and optimized for certain room acoustics, listening distances or distance to the walls.

There are lots of well-designed speakers which only work properly under restricted conditions (such as nearfield), and fail spectacularly when used in a different room.

Point well taken! I stand corrected. However, in my defence, I would like to note that the use of loudspeaker in professional environments is related more to music production than it is music reproduction.
In the home environment, and with reproduction being the aim (rather than production), an even frequency response and lack of distortion or resonance are the qualities that count as primary to most listeners.
I may be wrong, but I believe that applies to differences in radiation pattern, too. People would be more sensitive to aberrations in frequency response than they would radiation pattern .... again, I stress .... with the listening environments being identical.

 

[Deleted member 92621]

I didn't expect instant credibility. But trotting out the Toole trope of preference for flat frequency response from 200Hz to 20kHz fails in so many ways (and is really, really tired even for someone (me) who does use measurements).

1) We have learned so much since Toole's work. A frequency sweep in an anechoic or pseudo-anechoic environment or the full Spinorama captures single tone response. A speaker could meet the group-preference for this frequency response and still sound bad because of IM or multi-tone distortion, compression, or other reasons. Toole presented the group-preference frequency response as a starting point. If he now presents it also as the ending point, then he has changed his tune (pun intended).

2) The data that Toole presents also shows a strong preference for more SPL below 200Hz (not flat).

3) The group-preference at what SPL? Toole strongly argues for tone controls so you can boost and cut based on preference, volume level, recording, etc.

4) An average of subjective ratings is not an objective rating. It is/was useful for designing a speaker for the average person. But it treats all other variance around that preference as error (error variance). There is more than hearing damage (Toole's consistent example) that has, as far as I know, not been explored (other than possibly by boutique speaker makers) that could account for this “error variance.” There may be (likely are) large sub-populations (groups of people) with consistent preference for other frequency responses. It seemed Toole and others publishing research have had no interest in understanding these sub-populations. That's fine when it isn't your research question, but it assumes every car buyer wants a Toyota Camry (and people then trotting out the flat response trope work from the position that anyone who doesn’t want a Camry because they’ve been told the Camry is the preferred car is an idiot).

But back to my original points about trade-offs. As an example with horns, it is easier to make a more sensitive speaker with less expensive drivers (or at least it has been). Thus, a sizeable population might (does) exist where lower IM and multi-tone distortion, greater reverb, and high SPL are more preferred over the group-preference frequency response, issues with group delay, and other problems. Knowing that many prefer more low frequency SPL, lower distortion, and a bit of reverb, a boutique speaker maker could easily justify designing and selling a horn speaker that does these things (all with really well done, private measurements). Do I want that speaker for home theater use or in a studio? Maybe not, but I, personally, much prefer it for my 2-channel system where I might be listening at low levels and from a central seat (boost the treble too while you're at it).

What's the motivation to share the measurements or send speakers to Erin or ASR for review for a boutique maker? If there is a strong bias toward the group preferred frequency response as the only way to properly design a speaker while ignoring the real markets that exist (and they do exist) for different curves then there's no way I'd want measurement absolutists dragging my name/brand through the mud (not even that Erin is an absolutist). I know if I were a boutique maker I couldn't wait for one of these reviewers to tell their audience of thousands that my product was dog turds (/sarcasm).

Were boutique speakers tuned by ear? Surely. With no measurements? Unlikely for many of the larger makers. Science is not just about "objective measurement" but also has room (large room) for subjective observations. Seeing an anomaly is how many new discoveries are made and often without an objective measurement (induction, deduction, abduction can all occur from qualitative observation). The boutique makers have made these subjective observations and found sub-populations who agree (have a different shared group preference). Measurement absolutists can disagree and scream at the internet all they want. But these larger boutique makers know exactly that they are doing and they have measurements too. They have turned their subjective observation of an anomaly (their preference) into a repeatable (objective) product.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I explored the idea of switching to electrostatics after visiting a friend's system and being highly impressed. More research led me to arrange a convincing showroom demo of the widely well-reviewed Martin Logan 13A Expression speakers - much costlier speakers than my friend's big Quads.

I have sympathy for you. I have heard various electrostats, starting with the KLH model 9 in 1969. For wide-spectrum sound reproduction, I have never heard an electrostatic panel speaker that either sounded accurate or measured as accurate.
Don 't get me wrong ... electroststats can sound quite beguiling. I'm not saying that they aren't a lot of fun ... they can be quite fun! And for the voice portion of the spectrum, they can be quite accurate.
There are panel advocates that say our methods of measuring panel speakers are inadequate, and that's the reason they measure so poorly. That might be true, but I have never gotten to the point of worrying about it. The comb filtering and dispersion pattern (that I heard as unnatural) turned me off.

Again, you use the phrase "widely well-reviewed" . I cannot stress forcefully enough, time and time again, that subjective reviews are worthless. Don't use them a a basis for selecting a speaker. If nothing else, your incident proves this. You found out that the speaker being "well-reviewed" by other people, regardless of their numbers, was of absolutely no help to you.
Better by far to use instrumental measurements. It's true, as has been pointed out above, that understanding measurements takes time and effort. However, I don't think it takes all that much time and effort. What takes a great deal of time and effort is correlating measurements with your own preferences ... in other words, learning which measurements denote a loudspeaker that will provide you with the characteristics you find personally attractive.

What will you do if, in the end, you prove to yourself that the work of Dr. Toole, that the majority of listeners prefer speakers with even frequency response and low coloration (distortion and resonance) is true for you? Will you not have wasted a great deal of time and effort to verify what you could verify today with some simple (but admittedly annoying) double-blind tests?

We're not know-it-alls here. We're not evil, and we're not holding to untenable precepts. We ascribe to principles that have been investigated again and again, and WE ARE TRYING TO HELP YOU! WE ARE NOT YOUR ENEMIES! Can you not understand that?

If you think we are ignorant, please review this set of videos that Amir has available. Perhaps in reviewing them, you will get a better idea of where we are coming from and why we say what we say.

Master List of Instructional Teaching Video presentations (How to read and interpret/understand all the Graphs and Charts!

Collection of Amir’s instructional Videos for reference, refresher and new members: (“Behind the Curtain @ ASR University”) Welcome New and returning Members of ASR. Our Host Amir has put together a collection of comprehensive instructional videos that might help new and returning Members...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Peace!

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I did address under 200 Hz. For some reason you omitted it when you quoted me.

Also, what is a "so-called controlled listening test"?


My point. But I am still not sure what is your need to equivocate any reference to controlled listening tests.


Both Toole and Olive have repeatedly stated that bass level preference is more varied among individuals than other frequency bands. Which I mentioned in my post...the part that you omitted when quoting me.


Again with the controlled listening tests in quote marks. What's your beef?


Yes, they do, but they typically don't understand how those factors are unconsciously changing their perceptions of the sound quality. So, they genuinely believe it is the sound waves alone creating their impression of sound quality, not realising that the non-sonic factors can easily dominate.

Of course, if you were to ask them if they bought it for the story or appearance, they would sincerely and hotly deny it.


I don't agree that my logic leads to your conclusion. They would actually have to conduct controlled listening test comparisons for your argument to hold. They never do. So how can it lead to market dominance?


Name some, please. The vast failures.

Also, you make it sound like such speakers invariably fail, and vastly to boot. When I think of the more expensive speakers from companies like Revel, KEF, Dutch&Dutch, Genelec, Neumann, Kii Audio, Magico, I don't think of vast failures.


And guess what - we should also accept that their almost-inevitable auditioning process is entirely sighted listening, and hence not dominated by their preferences in relation to the sound waves themselves. As already explained if you re-read post #1113.


I have a soft spot for good horn speakers, but it is a cognitive bias of mine, and may or may not survive a controlled listening preference test (without the strange quote marks), if I ever get the opportunity to participate in one. And from your report above, you may unconsciously have a cognitive bias against horns. (BTW what are these horn speakers with perfect spinorama and low distortion that you hated and had terrible colourations and poor imaging and transparency?)

cheers

Arindal is smart and convicted but despite his claims of having participated in thousands of tests he has never provided an iota of evidence to legitimize his heterodox opinions, so it’s trust me bro or an endless cycle of logicking and appeals to authority.

For all I know he might be right but in the face of actual empirical studies he’s just a peanut gallerist.

 

[amirm]

The question that measurement fanatics never seem to want to answer is "Would you buy a speaker solely based on its measurements?"

I would buy it 90% based on measurements. There would be 0% chance I would buy it based on some subjective opinion/"review."

If the answer is No, then it follows that what it sounds like to your own ears is what really matters when parting with a large dollop of hard-earned cash.

That's not the answer in the way you mean it. My 10% is based on hearing how loud/distortion-free it plays, not any kind of tonality, character, other nonsense you may be talking about.

 

[Duke]

... boutique speaker manufacturers. Many of them are hitting a specific frequency response that isn't flat.

Not that I can speak for the vast legions of my fellow boo-teek speaker manufacturers, but two of the three deliberate departures from "flat" that I routinely indulge in show up in the "trained listeners only" in-room curve in this diagram (they're in some of the other curves too, but those don't have the same credibility):

The third deliberate departure from "flat" that I routinely indulge in is wherever the woofer's surround resonance makes its unwelcome appearance. It doesn't always stand out in the frequency response curves but it's there in the impedance curve, and [blasphemy alert] it can be fairly reliably located by ear with a sine-wave sweep [/alert].

 

[Flaesh]

any expensive example of the past 25 years marketed under Harman Luxury

I don't know the price. But I'm almost sure this is the almost any example:

 

[Flaesh]

I'm definitely against this cutoff above 20 Hz)). 20 Hz 0 dB is quite acceptable for home hi-fi.

 

[Arindal]

...so it’s trust me bro

So i am stating once again forever: don´t trust me, bros! Try to understand yourself if it makes sense what I have experienced trying to match listening test results and measurements, and do your own tests. I invite everyone to doublecheck in own tests everything I am stating, and I specifically do not encourage anyone to buy products just because I recommended them.

Point well taken! I stand corrected. However, in my defence, I would like to note that the use of loudspeaker in professional environments is related more to music production than it is music reproduction.

Thanks. And yes, you are right, production is a bit different from reproduction in the sense of monitoring for mixing/recording/mastering requiring a lower degree of deviation from reference conditions, so more should be done to avoid deviations from the ideal reference as otherwise you get inverted flaws sneaking into your mixes.

I do not think that references and ideal aspects of sound quality are differing between studio and home listening, or should differ. I have attended the general rehearsal in the auditorium, I have done the mixdown on studio monitors, I take the mix home and want ideally to hear exactly the same thing like in the control room.

n the home environment, and with reproduction being the aim (rather than production), an even frequency response and lack of distortion or resonance are the qualities that count as primary to most listeners.

I agree that these are important, but I would not say they are ´primary´. For the simple reason that anechoic frequency response, albeit its importance, can be easily corrected using DSP, and distortion under home listening conditions is not such a dramatic problem, as listening distances and average SPL are rather tame, compared to sound reinforcement or bigger reference monitoring facilities.

I believe that applies to differences in radiation pattern, too. People would be more sensitive to aberrations in frequency response than they would radiation pattern .... again, I stress .... with the listening environments being identical.

Under nearfield conditions or in well-treated studio control rooms, I would agree. For home conditions? Not so much, I see radiation pattern and directivity as the single most important aspect of a loudspeaker, when it comes to choosing a model for a particular room. Reason being the impact of a wrong choice is very significant, in my understanding, and chances to correct anything are close to zero.

 

[Arindal]

two of the three deliberate departures from "flat" that I routinely indulge in show up in the "trained listeners only" in-room curve in this diagram

To be fair, this in-room curve is described as the result curve of an anechoically flat loudspeaker with either increasing directivity index towards higher frequencies, or increasing absorption grade in the room (or both).

Amir has pointed out that these ´trained listeners´ were trained to recognize and identify even narrow-banded tonal deviations from a perfectly flat anechoic response, ignoring other aspects of reproduction quality, such as reverb tonality or imaging. It is to be expected that after such training (which apprentice recording engineers tend to do using primarily headphones) one would always prefer the flat anechoic curve previously presented as a reference.

I personally would agree that colorated reverb, hence tilted in-room curve, also qualifies as coloration. At least with recordings containing meaningful, natural reverb. As a litmus test, I in the past have recommended a particular classical recording containing spoken and sung words.

But I'm almost sure this is the almost any example:

I am not familiar with such wooden-furry model. But the shape looks very much like an M2. The pro audio variant was one of the JBL models because of which I have been writing these lines, in my understanding a textbook example of what can go wrong in a horn.

 

[Hear Here]

Again, you use the phrase "widely well-reviewed" . I cannot stress forcefully enough, time and time again, that subjective reviews are worthless. Don't use them a a basis for selecting a speaker. If nothing else, your incident proves this. You found out that the speaker being "well-reviewed" by other people, regardless of their numbers, was of absolutely no help to you.
Better by far to use instrumental measurements.

Again, picking out a single paragraph, I don't agree your opinion regarding reviews – at least not all reviews. I will not watch Youtube reviews conducted by self-appointed "experts" who are likely to have no more knowledge than me, have poor or limited ancillary equipment to use with the item under test, and likely no means to measure performance. However, there are still good reviewers whose opinions I might use to compile a short list of contenders, but I would NEVER add an item to this short list based on measurements alone. I’ve bought an exceptionally good measuring amplifier a few years ago and it turned out as dull as ditchwater. A good-measuring speaker I bought 25 years ago (one used in numerous recording studios) was unsuitable in my listening room and had to be moved on quickly.

Regarding my Martin Logan purchase, it is well-reviewed by people with genuine knowledge, it probably measures as well as other speakers in its price range (you could perhaps tell me), and it sounded impressive in a well-known London showroom. The problem was - and measurements would not have revealed this - the room in which the speakers were to be placed is unsuitable for this TYPE of speaker. ML speakers project as much of their energy backwards as forwards, both from their els panel and their twin woofers that project forwards and backwards. This requires a wall of some sort to harvest some of this energy. Imagine placing them in a room where the wall (a floor-to-ceiling window) is curved and 12 ft behind one and 18 ft behind the other speaker. It won’t work well!

How would measurements alone forewarn me that this speaker would perform so badly in my own room? I should have arranged a home demo first - as anyone in their right mind should when buying costly speakers - however good they may sound in a showroom or to a inanimate microphone and PC.

 

[Hear Here]

I would buy it 90% based on measurements. There would be 0% chance I would buy it based on some subjective opinion/"review."

Well, wouldn't you have also come a cropper if you had bought the ML speakers I mentioned if you had a room similar to my own? Even your 10% non-measurement factor would not have saved your bacon if it was gleaned from a showroon demo.

 

[Jim Taylor]

production is a bit different from reproduction in the sense of monitoring for mixing/recording/mastering requiring a lower degree of deviation from reference conditions, so more should be done to avoid deviations from the ideal reference as otherwise you get inverted flaws sneaking into your mixes.

What you describe is an ideal condition, and one that should be the goal of every recording engineer. Unfortunately, we have to deal with the "Circle of Confusion".

Audio's Circle of Confusion

Audio’s “Circle of Confusion” is a term coined by Floyd Toole [1] that describes the confusion that exists within the audio recording and r...

seanolive.blogspot.com

However, the overall situation seems to be slowly improving, mostly due to attitudes like yours.

 

[Arindal]

How would measurements alone forewarn me that this speaker would perform so badly in my own room?

Horizontal isobaric graph, polar plot or frequency response measurements for the rear (180deg) would have revealed the dipole pattern over a vast frequency range, making it mandatory to check the situation of the rear wall bounce.

Note that I do not put much of trust into people claiming they can precisely predict how a loudspeaker will sound in a room depending solely on measurements. Have encountered too many situations in which this failed.

What I do think is very helpful, and one of the main points why I think measurements are important, is double checking the compatibility of the room, the speaker and the desired listening setup. An RT60 measurement of the room and isobaric plots (v/h) of the speakers, usually do this job.

 

[Arindal]

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the "Circle of Confusion".

Many recording engineers are actually aware of this circle of confusion, particularly those working in different control rooms with different speakers regularly. In the broadcasting community, there have been several attempts to standardize the sound quality parameters in control rooms and broadcast trucks. Unfortunately, the resulting tolerance bands are rather loose, with the question ´why?´ never being answered (Dr. Toole asked me once, when he stumbled across the official EBU guidelines).

The main root cause of the circle of confusion, as I understand it, is the fact there is no ´reference´, or ´genuine event´ for mixes which are done electronically. That is true to most of pop, rock and electronic music recordings, as they inherently bear the particular reproduction quality and sound character in the mixing control room (or mastering suite) in which they were made.

Unfortunately, the circle of confusion works the other way ´round as well: taking, without prior listening tests, an anechoically flat-measuring speaker, oftentimes with kinked directivity/colorated reverb, as the one and only reference, or asking people in a controlled blind test using popular recordings ´Do you like speaker A or speaker B more?´, are the two situations in which the circle of confusion is at maximum play. Play a different recording, you will get another result. That is why I put ´controlled listening tests´ in brackets for such experiments, as they introduce so many variables, from the mastering engineer´s taste to their mastering monitors, the taste of the listeners, the acoustics of the room, that making the test blind or averaging the fully subjective results with statistical methods, does not qualify as ´controlled´, for me personally.

For popular recordings which are marketed by professional labels, there oftentimes is a second institution in mastering stage. Mastering engineers have such a vast experience with lots of recordings, and they are very familiar with their own control suite, they can eliminate most of ´circle of confusion´-induced anomalies from a mix and bring it to enjoyable level on a good, linear system. So, unlike many audiophiles, I like to listen to a vast variety of non-audiophile recordings of different genres, assuming that mastering conditions could not have been that far off from an averaged ideal. If >75% of recordings sound fine and are enjoyable, I take it as an indirect sign that the loudspeaker in question is close to the average. It is neither a reference nor a guarantee, though.

The only way, to ground ourselves and partly find a way out of the circle of confusion, is as a recording engineer to listen to an acoustic live event like an opera, oratorio performance or symphonic concert in the auditorium (I like general rehearsals for that), before you do the (live broadcast) mixdown, or eventually judge the sound quality of speakers with this mix. In this case, there is a reference, and the engineer who has been doing the mixdown can explain why in this or that way the sonic impression is deviating from the live event. And exactly that is what I have been doing with quite a number of recording engineers, everyone bringing their own recordings, and it was actually pretty fruitful in terms of judging loudspeakers. And respecting loudspeakers which I personally don´t like or which are subject to harsh criticism for not meeting measurement standards.

The sad aspect: whenever I did such experiments, horn-loaded monitors were despised and ranked the worst by almost everyone, even by horn lovers among the engineers in blind tests. The only noteworthy exception was the Strauss main monitor which I have linked above.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Again, picking out a single paragraph, I don't agree your opinion regarding reviews – at least not all reviews. I will not watch Youtube reviews conducted by self-appointed "experts" who are likely to have no more knowledge than me, have poor or limited ancillary equipment to use with the item under test, and likely no means to measure performance. However, there are still good reviewers whose opinions I might use to compile a short list of contenders, but I would NEVER add an item to this short list based on measurements alone. I’ve bought an exceptionally good measuring amplifier a few years ago and it turned out as dull as ditchwater. A good-measuring speaker I bought 25 years ago (one used in numerous recording studios) was unsuitable in my listening room and had to be moved on quickly.

Regarding my Martin Logan purchase, it is well-reviewed by people with genuine knowledge, it probably measures as well as other speakers in its price range (you could perhaps tell me), and it sounded impressive in a well-known London showroom. The problem was - and measurements would not have revealed this - the room in which the speakers were to be placed is unsuitable for this TYPE of speaker. ML speakers project as much of their energy backwards as forwards, both from their els panel and their twin woofers that project forwards and backwards. This requires a wall of some sort to harvest some of this energy. Imagine placing them in a room where the wall (a floor-to-ceiling window) is curved and 12 ft behind one and 18 ft behind the other speaker. It won’t work well!

How would measurements alone forewarn me that this speaker would perform so badly in my own room? I should have arranged a home demo first - as anyone in their right mind should when buying costly speakers - however good they may sound in a showroom or to a inanimate microphone and PC.

I see that you have absorbed nothing I have written. The problems you have had are due to your residual (and now selective) belief in subjective reviews. As regards the panel speaker ... did you trust the salesmen? If so, for heaven's sake, why? Did the salesmen ask you your room dimensions? Did you tell them your room dimensions? Did you look up measurements of panel speakers before you purchased the panel speakers? If you had, you would have been apprised of the problems they present.

Sales personnel will tell you whatever it takes to get your money. Some are more honest than others, but all of them have car payments, family obligations, rent and retirement investments to worry about. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THEM TO MAKE SALES!. I'm not saying that they're evil, but I am definitely saying that they are an impediment to your personal satisfaction .... something you found out the hard way.

I had been caught in the trap of B.S. years ago, and it was the driving impetus behind my learning the scientific side of audio. MEASUREMENTS - ACCURATE AND CONCISE MEASUREMENTS - WERE THE MAJOR FACTOR IN FREEING MYSELF FROM THE TRAP THE INDUSTRY USES.

I repeat .... if you had searched for measurements of panel speakers, you would have seen all the problems they present. Reviewers who measure tend to mention the shortcomings of panel speakers and explain the reason for those shortcomings. Obviously, the glowing subjectivist "reviews" you trusted as guidance failed to do so.

In every instance and at every turn, the problems you experienced could have been eliminated (or at least ameliorated) by relying on measurements. Yes, learning to understand measurements would take some time away from your day, I admit that.
But ... hobby photographers need to learn about the optical characteristics of lenses, exposure times and color dimension, too. Otherwise, they make mistakes left and right.
Painters need to learn about driers, shellacs, resins, solvents, and much, much more. If they don't, they are spectacularly unsuccessful.
Amateur racers need to learn about torque curves, suspension, steering load, tire circumference and much more. Otherwise, they just waste their time and money.

No matter the hobby you choose, the benefits of learning and applying the principles of science are enormous. In audio, that means measurements, and large numbers of them.

The people in audio who are bound and determined to cheat manipulate you use the science of psychology to do so. Even the ones who poo-poo measurements are secretly depending on science to get what they want out of you.

Defend yourself. Free yourself from the swamp. Learn about measurements, science and dispassionate evaluation. Learn to spot what evaluations or reviewers don't tell you as well as what they do tell you. Become reliably independent, standing on your own two feet amidst the leeches who want to suck your blood. people who want to manipulate you.

I had linked to Amir's page of tests. It appears you didn't take the time and effort to read the information offered. I will repeat the link, and I suggest that you view all the videos, taking the time to understand them in depth. In a very short period of time, the benefits will become obvious. If you have difficulties or questions, we are here to help.

Master List of Instructional Teaching Video presentations (How to read and interpret/understand all the Graphs and Charts!

Collection of Amir’s instructional Videos for reference, refresher and new members: (“Behind the Curtain @ ASR University”) Welcome New and returning Members of ASR. Our Host Amir has put together a collection of comprehensive instructional videos that might help new and returning Members...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Good luck ... and that is NOT a facetious comment. I mean it.

 

[Mort]

don´t trust me, bros!

We don't. Really we don't.

 

[DanielT]

A speaker could meet the group-preference for this frequency response and still sound bad because of IM or multi-tone distortion, compression, or other reasons. Toole presented the group-preference frequency response as a starting point. If he now presents it also as the ending point, then he has changed his tune (pun intended).

Toole didn't concentrate his studies and blind tests on IM or multi-tone distortion, compression as far as I remember. It was FR that was in focus. But with that said, Toole doesn't deny or ignore that distortion can affect, does he?

We've all experienced what it sounds like
if we push our speakers , when the limitations, max SPL kick in. When distortion becomes audible, when compression affects, when speakers with low power handling have to sweat a lot, when woffers with short stroke/x-max and/or small cone (small woffer) struggle to produce bass.
Even worse is the combination of that plus a low powered amp that is driven into clipping. Think crappy old car stereo how awful it could sound if you turned the volume up too high. Table radio....and so on.