I cannot trust the Harman speaker preference score

[Bjorn]

It took several coffee-breaks to get through this text. And though I disagree with some parts, I find there is much more common ground. To go into detail is beyond this random forum discussion.

So instead I make my comment on something we do agree upon. With a little addition at the end.

Flat on-axis frequency response looks like a no-brainer, and it is not very difficult to achieve. Yet many speakers show quite strange responses, many of which are highly rewarded. Are we missing something here? I think not. Some speakers are tuned to give a reasonably neutral tonal balance in-room, and if the off-axis is colored, the on axis needs to be adjusted. Then you end up with a speaker that can be quite neutral, when placed as intended, in a room with certain acoustic properties. The obviously better solution seems to be to correct the radiation pattern of the speaker, and end up with a speaker that works well in any room. And it does - to some degree.

Here I show you the frequency response of a system in a typical living room, this is a recent install. Looks reasonably good. But this graph does not say much about the sound of this system. It misses how the room affects the response in the time domain, and how the spectral balance of the decay in this room affects tonality.

The owner of this system lives nearby, so he has heard my rooms many times. He does not need a blind-test to know which is preferred - the treated room, or his larger untreated space. The difference is extreme. But fixing the room is not an option, for practical reasons. So this is my challenge, as a system designer - make it work in this room, as it is. Design a speaker that works in any room, and find methods for placement and calibration.

The speakers are the most important here, and flat on-axis + smooth/controlled pattern works better across a majority of different spaces, that is what I have found. And I have measured and listened to a lot of different rooms.

I chose to implement some smaller minimum-phase frequency corrections in the midrange, and this improved tonality. Room correction with FIR/phase-correcting filters can not fix this.

Then I suggested moving the speakers out into the room, closer to the listening position, and even have an alternative listening position closer to the speakers, for those occasions that the best possible sound is to be experienced. And it works, the sound is then closer to my treated rooms. Why it works is no mystery.

Here is the graph that really tells nothing, perhaps other than that the speakers indeed have smooth, flat frequency response. Still, this is what most people obess about:
View attachment 193199

The frequency respons is only the most important factor as long you have a decent response without major deviations or if for example by comparing both in a mediocre/poor acoustical room. This quickly changes when the responses don't deviate too much and you have other aspects between two speakers with very audible differences. Or if you compare it in a highly well treated room vs a poor or mediocre one, and where the time domain matters far more.

Like someone said: "A modest system in a "good" room can easily outperform upscale, expensive equipment (and objective good) in a bad one."

 

[fineMen]

... To go into detail is beyond this random forum discussion. ...
... how the room affects the response in the time domain, and how the spectral balance of the decay in this room affects tonality. ...
... have an alternative listening position closer to the speakers, for those occasions that the best possible sound ...

This thread first discussed, if "the score" can be trusted. You added an interesting aspect. Reflections have to be considered as detrimental for the sound stage realism. The score doesn't take the width of the dispersion pattern into consideration. If I get You right, the score doesn't tell it all, hence shall not be taken as a final verdict.

You reintroduce the argument with mentioning the room affecting time domain, decay and tonal balance--the main concern of the score, conclusively. You then advertise a closer listening position, which naturally would mute the reflections relatively.

This is a side-move, me thinks. I don't want to analyse its persuasive strength. I would rather like to come back to Your sound-stage argument. This could be valid, indeed. The score relies on mono listening tests, and there should be doubt if it was applicable for stereo in the first place!

I lately expressed my expectation, that reverberation in contemporary recordings is either recorded separately, or is generated synthetically, and in either case added to close-proximity, individual recordings of the solo instruments. Other, additional techniques might apply.

Now, if the reverberation isn't stereo in itself? The reverberation, as said recorded separately or synthesised, is basically mono, added without further ado to both stereo channels without differentiation. What then about the time relation of in-room reflections to the direct sound? And by which means would these affect the plausibility of the stereo imaging?

I personally argue, that reverberation, by our all hearing, isn't evaluated for directional cues. Experiment: close an ear and try, blindfolded, to orient Yourself confined in a room. Possible - proven! The notorious two-ear technology isn't needed to get the picture. Maybe it is just the significant burst of the early and late arrivals, a timely, but not directional pattern of reflections, that portrays the room.

 

[gnarly]

A few non-measurement based experiments i like, to help sort out a speaker, from a room, from the brain.....

First is the simple take the speaker outdoors test. Inevitable greater clarity, usually along with tonality shifts, sometimes large.
Ime, it quickly illuminates the influence of reflections, room reverb, and sub loading.

Next, in the relatively reflection free environment of outdoors, is regenerative-loss recordings.
Record the speaker playing a song with a measurement mic. Play that recording, and record that playing. And again....and again...

Goes to pot real quick, and first thing that's usually heard is that the outdoor environment is not as reflection free as imagined.
Because the reflections are usually the strongest factor to degrade the first recording, and then amplify that degradation in successive recordings.

(If it's a really crappy speaker in terms of uneven non-flat response, then that can dominate the first recording degradation.)
Surviving three rounds, and still sounding good, is excellent ime. Four totally rocks.

Indoors, the regenerative-loss test can be tough to get a decent recording right from the git-go.
So then, like the experiment of listening through a measurement mic, playing into sealed back, ear coupling headphones.
Decouples the room quite a bit. Shows how much work my brain is having to do

Should add, I've used the above tests with successful DIY builds that were tuned outdoors via spinorama.
I like to try those tests when I've gotten really excellent on-ax, and at least very good off-ax sets, of mag and phase measurements.

(Need to credit TDanley for the listen-thru-mic, and regenerative-loss recording ideas.)

 

[steve59]

Kef went from their reference speakers having a head on a swivel to the uniq design, maybe they were right already and marketing dept's push for the latest, greatest thing has builders and consumers behaving like hamsters on a wheel, look at clothing.

 

[IPunchCholla]

This thread first discussed, if "the score" can be trusted. You added an interesting aspect. Reflections have to be considered as detrimental for the sound stage realism. The score doesn't take the width of the dispersion pattern into consideration. If I get You right, the score doesn't tell it all, hence shall not be taken as a final verdict.

You reintroduce the argument with mentioning the room affecting time domain, decay and tonal balance--the main concern of the score, conclusively. You then advertise a closer listening position, which naturally would mute the reflections relatively.

This is a side-move, me thinks. I don't want to analyse its persuasive strength. I would rather like to come back to Your sound-stage argument. This could be valid, indeed. The score relies on mono listening tests, and there should be doubt if it was applicable for stereo in the first place!

I lately expressed my expectation, that reverberation in contemporary recordings is either recorded separately, or is generated synthetically, and in either case added to close-proximity, individual recordings of the solo instruments. Other, additional techniques might apply.

Now, if the reverberation isn't stereo in itself? The reverberation, as said recorded separately or synthesised, is basically mono, added without further ado to both stereo channels without differentiation. What then about the time relation of in-room reflections to the direct sound? And by which means would these affect the plausibility of the stereo imaging?

I personally argue, that reverberation, by our all hearing, isn't evaluated for directional cues. Experiment: close an ear and try, blindfolded, to orient Yourself confined in a room. Possible - proven! The notorious two-ear technology isn't needed to get the picture. Maybe it is just the significant burst of the early and late arrivals, a timely, but not directional pattern of reflections, that portrays the room.

Your example, even if true (not sure how to blind test this), doesn’t show that we don’t evaluate reverberation for directional cues. Only that, again,if true, we can also use our motion to create directional cues using a single ear, position and time to create directional cues. We are likely doing both, the same way we do with our eyes. Stereo vision only creates 3d to around 25 feet. Everything past that is rendered using time domain information.

Binaural hearing is excellent at location sources of sound in the bearish field. Just watch a fox hunt a mouse under a blanket of snow. It likely is also providing locational information in the time domain to allow the fox to know where it is in relationship to its environment. This can also be done with one ear.

 

[Multicore]

Was that last comment serious?

Hard to tell on the interwebs.

partly, it is a joke. i don't go to church so i honestly don't care what gets literally denounced from pulpits. so that part was a joke.

but i do believe that stereo is for the most part a stupid waste of resources and that in most practical music listening situations we'd be better off if mono had remained the de facto standard for distribution of mass market commercial recordings.

clearly it is possible to make good use of 2+ channel reproduction if the listening environment is very well controlled and if the recording is made in a sensible way. so i grant that the audiophile and stereophile hobby of positioning one person in a specially prepared electroacoustic system can deliver rewards.

but most recordings are not sensibly made, they are synthetic and arbitrary, or, if you like, artistic uses of the 2-channel distribution standard. another but: most real world listening is done not in a well controlled environment. so the possibility of gaining anything of value from having more than one channel is slim and the possibility losing something is evident. a simple example is, you're in a social situation listening to Bohemian Rhapsody because the person talking to you is boring and you can hear only half of the Galileos.

and a further but: i am a music lover and not an audiophile and i don't practice listening like the Maxell man. i think that's perverse. music is a social practice. therefore i regard stereo as a tyranny inflicted on us to sell gear we don't need using hi-fidelity as an excuse.

 

[Multicore]

Because the critics of the mono listening test think that it overlooks how well the speaker will do all the phantom imaging stuff between the speakers, eg height effects, depth effects, wide or narrow sound staging, the realism of the size of instruments between the speakers...that sort of thing.

sorry, my "Why is that?" was not clear. I meant: why did I enjoy that sentence from Floyd's doc so much? (answer a couple of minutes ago ^)

but yes, i suppose you are right.

 

[Pdxwayne]

partly, it is a joke. i don't go to church so i honestly don't care what gets literally denounced from pulpits. so that part was a joke.

but i do believe that stereo is for the most part a stupid waste of resources and that in most practical music listening situations we'd be better off if mono had remained the de facto standard for distribution of mass market commercial recordings.

clearly it is possible to make good use of 2+ channel reproduction if the listening environment is very well controlled and if the recording is made in a sensible way. so i grant that the audiophile and stereophile hobby of positioning one person in a specially prepared electroacoustic system can deliver rewards.

but most recordings are not sensibly made, they are synthetic and arbitrary, or, if you like, artistic uses of the 2-channel distribution standard. another but: most real world listening is done not in a well controlled environment. so the possibility of gaining anything of value from having more than one channel is slim and the possibility losing something is evident. a simple example is, you're in a social situation listening to Bohemian Rhapsody because the person talking to you is boring and you can hear only half of the Galileos.

and a further but: i am a music lover and not an audiophile and i don't practice listening like the Maxell man. i think that's perverse. music is a social practice. therefore i regard stereo as a tyranny inflicted on us to sell gear we don't need using hi-fidelity as an excuse.

Why do you even have two ears? Maybe close one of your ears all the time and you are even better off?

: P

 

[Multicore]

Why do you even have two ears? Maybe close one ear of your ears all the time and you are even better off?

ah, the marketing value of teleology. i have two ears in order to need two loudspeakers.

 

[Pdxwayne]

ah, the marketing value of teleology. i have two ears in order to need two loudspeakers.

Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?

 

[fineMen]

Your example, even if true (not sure how to blind test this), doesn’t show that we don’t evaluate reverberation for directional cues.

You're right, while saying it wrong. I said, we do not use directional cues when evaluating some reverberation. You mention the evaluation of reverberation for directional cues.
My argument was a plausibility test, not a proof. In case I can determine my location within a room using only one ear, the benefit of using two ears is nil. The rule of least effort would then argue in favour of my statement: the in-a-room experience is sufficiently emulated with monophonic reverberation. If monophonic reverberation suffices, then time domain shifts in stereo from listening room reflections is a non-issue.

*Behold, otherwise You would be in deepest argumentative trouble to declare how the heck the stereo of the original reverberation from the recording site survives to Your ear during play-back over two speakers. Only in case, though, You are scientifically educated enough to know what a thorough explanation should look like. Never mind.

... clearly it is possible to make good use of 2+ channel reproduction if the listening environment is very well controlled and if the recording is made in a sensible way.

@Multicore, You nail it. "Stereo Imaging" became the Holy Grail for Audiophiles, as an excuse to never be satisfied, hence still working-out on Critical Listening instead of enjoying the music, as is the initial purpose. The hardest thing to do seems to convince people of the engineer's "good enough".

 

[fineMen]

Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?

May I? Phase reversal, didn't You know?

 

[Pdxwayne]

May I? Phase reversal, didn't You know?

I don't. Please show me an article that describes how a single speaker can do surround sound with phase reversal? Thanks!

 

[fineMen]

I don't. Please show me an article that describes how a single speaker can do surround sound with phase reversal? Thanks!

Why should I link my statement to other peoples authority? Such techniques are educated on university in sound engineering class. I have second hand experience (my daughter in law was first). You could, just in case of further interest, start Your own experimentation. You may have a p/c with sound output.

Anyway, You initially asked:

Do tell how one speaker could make music notes float around you in 3D?

That is not surround sound.

 

[MattHooper]

partly, it is a joke. i don't go to church so i honestly don't care what gets literally denounced from pulpits. so that part was a joke.

but i do believe that stereo is for the most part a stupid waste of resources and that in most practical music listening situations we'd be better off if mono had remained the de facto standard for distribution of mass market commercial recordings.

clearly it is possible to make good use of 2+ channel reproduction if the listening environment is very well controlled and if the recording is made in a sensible way. so i grant that the audiophile and stereophile hobby of positioning one person in a specially prepared electroacoustic system can deliver rewards.

but most recordings are not sensibly made, they are synthetic and arbitrary, or, if you like, artistic uses of the 2-channel distribution standard. another but: most real world listening is done not in a well controlled environment. so the possibility of gaining anything of value from having more than one channel is slim and the possibility losing something is evident. a simple example is, you're in a social situation listening to Bohemian Rhapsody because the person talking to you is boring and you can hear only half of the Galileos.

I have no qualms if you personally dislike stereo. I'm glad you weren't elected "King" though, because I'm awfully grateful to have stereo over mono

As to "sensibly made" recordings I'm not sure what that would even mean.

All recordings are artistic choices, whether it's how one decides to record a symphony, or produce some zany electronica. I personally make zero demands on "how a recording was made" - it's the artistic choice. My music collection contains a vast amount of divergent sounding recordings - many very wacky - and I enjoy them all and would HATE if instead some monolithic version of "sensibly made" had constricted those choices.

And I adore the wonderful dimensionality and immersion of listening to my stereo. I'm sorry you can't seem to enjoy it.

and a further but: i am a music lover and not an audiophile

What are you doing in a forum like this, then?

and i don't practice listening like the Maxell man. i think that's perverse. music is a social practice.

No, music is performed and listened to in many diverse ways. Your view seems a tad tyrannical.

Do you think we need to "read books in public groups?" That would be silly given that reading a book, undisturbed, is a great pleasure especially as it aids the immersion in the book. Plenty of people feel the same about being immersed in music at home. Why shouldn't we enjoy that? Because you don't?

As it happens I'm a very social person and, while I enjoy listening alone, I really enjoy listening to music with friends and family. (Which includes them coming over to listen to music on my system). Why limit options.

therefore i regard stereo as a tyranny inflicted on us to sell gear we don't need using hi-fidelity as an excuse.

Strange you cast it as tyrannical. Stereo offers many of us a choice that we gladly take advantage of - I'd never want to give up my stereo speakers. And it's not just audiophiles - my non-audiophile friends just bought some KEF speakers and they have been thrilled with listening to music, including in the "sweet spot." And of course...all those who love listening to music in their car - almost always surrounded by the music.

You on the other hand, based on a personal dislike for stereo it seems, would prefer everyone's choices be limited to mono. That seems more tyranical than a marketplace offering choice.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Why should I link my statement to other peoples authority? Such techniques are educated on university in sound engineering class. I have second hand experience (my daughter in law was first). You could, just in case of further interest, start Your own experimentation. You may have a p/c with sound output.

Anyway, You initially asked:



That is not surround sound.

So all this just opinion and second hand knowledge?

Anyway, go ahead and enjoy your mono. I will continue with my stereo and multichannels.

: P

 

[IPunchCholla]

You're right, while saying it wrong. I said, we do not use directional cues when evaluating some reverberation. You mention the evaluation of reverberation for directional cues.
My argument was a plausibility test, not a proof. In case I can determine my location within a room using only one ear, the benefit of using two ears is nil. The rule of least effort would then argue in favour of my statement: the in-a-room experience is sufficiently emulated with monophonic reverberation. If monophonic reverberation suffices, then time domain shifts in stereo from listening room reflections is a non-issue.

*Behold, otherwise You would be in deepest argumentative trouble to declare how the heck the stereo of the original reverberation from the recording site survives to Your ear during play-back over two speakers. Only in case, though, You are scientifically educated enough to know what a thorough explanation should look like. Never mind.



@Multicore, You nail it. "Stereo Imaging" became the Holy Grail for Audiophiles, as an excuse to never be satisfied, hence still working-out on Critical Listening instead of enjoying the music, as is the initial purpose. The hardest thing to do seems to convince people of the engineer's "good enough".

First off, you made an absolute statement: "I personally argue, that reverberation, by our all hearing, isn't evaluated for directional cues." You then proposed a test and use proven, not plausible. I take exception to your test as proposed. If you move your head AT ALL during your experiment, the receptor is no longer monophonic. We don't hear with our ears, but our brain/ear complex, so once the head moves time and space are being used. Have no idea what would happen in a reasonable execution of your test (head locked in position with sound being blocked from one ear (how do you even do that when we pick up sound through our skulls?)).

I don't make arguments from ignorance. You do.

No clue what you are getting at with the *Behold statement? Are you taking a dig at my scientific education? What does that have to do with anything? Besides ad-hominem? You seem to have a crusade against stereo and seem to think everyone disagreeing with you is doing so because the LOVE stereo, when in actuality your arguments are almost always unfounded. You propose experiments, but then don't actually execute them assuming your brilliant logic suffices. It doesn't.

And in case you're curious (not that you are since you actually don't seem to care to understand what other people think and why), I don't hold stereo to be the end all and be all. For me it is a least effort, best result, situation. I've tried mono and miss the play of space. I've tried 5.1 and didn't enjoy how much I had to futz with everything to get descent balance/envelopment. Especially since there are so many poor 5.1 mixes.

 

[fineMen]

You then proposed a test and use proven, not plausible. ...

As already said, basically You are right with Your caveat. Please accept my apologies.
In reaction to Your correct response I then set the flag half-mast, I claimed plausibility.

Now Your further reaction is quite elaborate. And again You are right in saying, that walking around, one ear blocked, isn't actually 'mono'.

Would You allow to change the setup, different question? Sit down, have some noise around, close the eyes, fall asleep ... sorry, I couldn't resist. Back on topic, ... ... mmh, doesn't make too much sense. Better I redo my little investigation with a stereo recording of sounds (clock ticking whatsoever) in my room and re-play it over headphones this time once mono, once stereo.

Your anticipated question: "What stereo microphone technique would You apply?" Right so again.

Look, we get into inherent contradiction / paradox here. This is, because stereo isn't recording "the truth".

My original question was: for a well done stereo reproduction, is it necessary to have the reverberation of a recording site to be reproduced in stereo too? Is it, in consequence, necessary to protect the stereo reverberation against time shift?***

Anecdote: one of late F. Zappa's 'musical theatre' recordings had different echo chambers for the individual actors, think it was 'Thing Fish'.


*** this is on topic, as it would ask for more narrow directivity, while directivity isn't, to my knowledge' accounted for of in "the score" discussed here

 

[sarumbear]

As already said, basically You are right with Your caveat. Please accept my apologies.
In reaction to Your correct response I then set the flag half-mast, I claimed plausibility.

Now Your further reaction is quite elaborate. And again You are right in saying, that walking around, one ear blocked, isn't actually 'mono'.

Would You allow to change the setup, different question? Sit down, have some noise around, close the eyes, fall asleep ... sorry, I couldn't resist. Back on topic, ... ... mmh, doesn't make too much sense. Better I redo my little investigation with a stereo recording of sounds (clock ticking whatsoever) in my room and re-play it over headphones this time once mono, once stereo.

Your anticipated question: "What stereo microphone technique would You apply?" Right so again.

Look, we get into inherent contradiction / paradox here. This is, because stereo isn't recording "the truth".

My original question was: for a well done stereo reproduction, is it necessary to have the reverberation of a recording site to be reproduced in stereo too? Is it, in consequence, necessary to protect the stereo reverberation against time shift?

Anecdote: one of late F. Zappa's 'musical theatre' recordings had different echo chambers for the individual actors, think it was 'Thing Fish'.

As the OP of the thread may I ask what has this to do with the topic?

 

[Shazb0t]

As the OP of the thread may I ask what has this to do with the topic?

The topic has already been beaten to death and shown to be a misguided "hot take".

What further data do you have to counter the controlled testing data, explanations, and caveats put forth by the authors of the peer reviewed and published research to suggest the topic of whether the preference score, derived from spinorama research statistical modeling correlation, is "meaningless" and needs to be further explored?