• 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!

Ideas for more meaningful speaker measurements

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
You measure after you understand what the results will mean, not the other way round as you suggest.

But not what there influence is subjectivly.
That you have to learn.
To make it easy for you, its easy to measure a bathtub temperature. But how does it feel? You have to learn.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
One possible solution is to change the way things are presented, which may be a good idea. Another (not mutually exclusive) is to write and explain a bit more about what is important and what is less important.

And perhaps some real life examples (I guess both Erin and Amir have already been doing some of this in their videos) of what things actually mean, and the significance (or not) of different things.

It's also things that looks different between speakers without necessarily being a problem in either. So it's probably hard to make this completely transparent and understandable for everyone. It's not like anybody can just look at a directivity plot and go "Aha I understand exactly what I'm seeing". :)

I agree and in particular, need to define the target audience. I personally may like and understand some of the measurements, but the trick for a broader audience is to make a concise focused message (and then enable drill down).

Right now, my feeling is that the initial set of measures should be lessened. Do like that Amir is supplying the Kilppel data and that allows the more technical folks to analyze it for their needs. ASR attracts some really smart folks, but IMO, needs to benefit a broader audience too.
 

puppet

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
446
Likes
284
Would it be possible to include efficiency ratings into the review?
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
The problem is, how to tell people measurements and how they impact what we hear, when most not realy know what +4db q3 at 15khz listen like? Yes +4db q2 at 4khz would sound like sh**(you know). Some enjoy to talk about the influence of .5 dB measurements in a small fr band, whats completly insane. Understanding measurements is not hard, but getting how they realy influence what we hear is much harder.

I think you hit on a key attribute.

Every measure should be based in proven science with correlation to what we can hear (and how we hear it). If it requires more than a sentence or two to explain, probably should get put in a secondary bucket.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Many, many clever people tried, many papers written, many standards agreed on but none have managed to create a method, including the one used in ASR, that can satisfy your wish fully.

Just trying to make ASR better and look for continuous improvements is the goal IMO. We will not be perfect and agree, some aspects may not have ready answers. Some prioritization is key and drawing a line on topics that may not have a good answer today.
 
Last edited:
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Would it be possible to include efficiency ratings into the review?

Please elaborate.

Are you looking to know whether the speaker (driven at a certain power) can fill a room with sound or something else?
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
But not what there influence is subjectivly.
That you have to learn.
To make it easy for you, its easy to measure a bathtub temperature. But how does it feel? You have to learn.
I disagree and that’s not how real life works either. You first experience difference water temperatures in a bath and then you measure the temperature so that you can assign subjective terms to the temperatures like hot, warm, lukewarm, cold, etc.

Like listening a speaker first then measuring it.
 

puppet

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2020
Messages
446
Likes
284
Please elaborate.

Are you looking to know whether the speaker (driven at a certain power) can fill a room with sound or something else?
Exactly. It might help people to differentiate between a small stand mount and JBL's M2.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,607
Likes
4,514
Location
Germany
I disagree and that’s not how real life works either. You first experience difference water temperatures in a bath and then you measure the temperature so that you can assign subjective terms to the temperatures like hot, warm, lukewarm, cold, etc.

Like listening a speaker first then measuring it.

But if you like to understand measurements in a review, you have to learn there impact. Realy dont get what you like to talk about? If i never heared +4db q3 at 16khz i dont get the measurements. I can say from a engineering point of view it should not be there. But how does it sound?
 

More Dynamics Please

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
562
Likes
752
Location
USA
Listening to a speaker first then measuring it would then require a second listening session to achieve an ASR goal of improving perceived performance by applying EQ to the areas where the speaker doesn't measure well. This would have the effect of increasing the workload for @amirm and reducing the number of speakers that could be sampled.
 

sarumbear

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
7,604
Likes
7,314
Location
UK
ASR attracts some really smart folks, but IMO, needs to benefit a broader audience too.
I disagree 100%. A forum that says Audio Science should never do such a thing. I see ASR’s job is to educate that broad audience. That is its USP.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
I disagree 100%. A forum that says Audio Science should never do such a thing. I see ASR’s job is to educate that broad audience. That is its USP.

As stated, is my opinion. Am pretty sure it aligns with Amir's, but in any case, is his call.
 

sigbergaudio

Major Contributor
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
2,639
Likes
5,397
Location
Norway
I agree and in particular, need to define the target audience. I personally may like and understand some of the measurements, but the trick for a broader audience is to make a concise focused message (and then enable drill down).

Right now, my feeling is that the initial set of measures should be lessened. Do like that Amir is supplying the Kilppel data and that allows the more technical folks to analyze it for their needs. ASR attracts some really smart folks, but IMO, needs to benefit a broader audience too.

Yes, different levels of measurements, some sort of executive summary might be good. If it's possible to do without generalizing too much. Again since the need of the intended audience differs as well, it's pretty difficult. A good speaker for one person may not be for the next. Some never play loud others requires a concert experience, some care about looks, some care only about price, some have small rooms some have large, some listen to folk music others to techno, the list goes on. :)
 

kimmosto

Active Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
213
Likes
498
Every measure should be based in proven science with correlation to what we can hear (and how we hear it).
This is very problematic limit because science has neither investigated nor agreed every significant and audible feature in speaker audio. I guess some features could be "too" obvious to study anymore. In addition, science and AES play at quite commercial field targeting modern (profitable) applications in the future.

Anyway, first step for opening is to remove ranking by preference rating. Maybe everything related to preference rating. It's okay for distinguishing crap products, but products aiming higher than speakers included in study for patent application (PR=1-7) won't success any better due to missing parameters and other flaws. One bad scenario is that some speaker in the future is optimized for PR (knowing that it could make speaker worse due to statistical simplifications and limits).
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
Listening to a speaker first then measuring it would then require a second listening session to achieve an ASR goal of improving perceived performance by applying EQ to the areas where the speaker doesn't measure well. This would have the effect of increasing the workload for @amirm and reducing the number of speakers that could be sampled.

Yes, agree in principle, but Amir has indicated this is a non-starter. Partly because of more work, but also because he sees an advantage to measuring first. My intent here was more about objective measurement improvement. If we want to get into the subjective testing, likely need another thread!

However, your suggestion reminded me that process improvements are another approach to consider too. Thanks. :)
 

dshreter

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
794
Likes
1,226
Where I think reviews could spend a little more time is evaluating the overall feature set of products. Especially with AV receivers and processors, SINAD is a small part of the overall story while the processing, bass management and room correction features are what make these products go. Lots of products get written off in a cursory way when SINAD is below their competitors when for the intended use case it’s a smaller part of what will shape the overall performance.

The measurements are still useful, but I don’t really consider it a product review, instead it is analysis of one dimension for how these products need to be reviewed.
 
OP
Rick Sykora

Rick Sykora

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
3,516
Likes
7,027
Location
Stow, Ohio USA
This is very problematic limit because science has neither investigated nor agreed every significant and audible feature in speaker audio. I guess some features could be "too" obvious to study anymore. In addition, science and AES play at quite commercial field targeting modern (profitable) applications in the future.

Understood, while not perfect, my point was to ensure that more proven measures get priority, My OP for this thread though is an example of one challenge. The established FR graph is misleading but not likely we are going to get an industry committee to agree on the more realistic representation. But maybe ASR can provide a catalyst for some meaningful change.
Anyway, first step for opening is to remove ranking by preference rating. Maybe everything related to preference rating. It's okay for distinguishing crap products, but products aiming higher than speakers included in study for patent application (PR=1-7) won't success any better due to missing parameters and other flaws. One bad scenario is that some speaker in the future is optimized for PR (knowing that it could make speaker worse due to statistical simplifications and limits).

The Olive scoring done by @MZKM and others is value add by ASR membership. As such, Amir lets it be. Maybe by prioritizing and refining what measures are most important, the index could be revamped to be used for a comparison tool? Given the scope, sounds like another topic thread. ;)
 

bigguyca

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
477
Likes
617
I agree and in particular, need to define the target audience. I personally may like and understand some of the measurements, but the trick for a broader audience is to make a concise focused message (and then enable drill down).

Right now, my feeling is that the initial set of measures should be lessened. Do like that Amir is supplying the Kilppel data and that allows the more technical folks to analyze it for their needs. ASR attracts some really smart folks, but IMO, needs to benefit a broader audience too.

The Internet is full of dumbed-down sources. Why should ASR be brought down to the level of 99% of the Internet? ASR and a very few other sites are worthwhile only because more advanced measurements and concepts often included.

Most of the world is STEM ignorant and very often STEM hostile. This fact is often demonstrated particularly on other forums where the discussion almost always turns to the Panthers instead of the measurements. This is because most all of the members of those forums don't understand even the basics of the ASR measurements such as a "dB" and how it is calculated.

If ASR is shooting for some sort of "ratings" by appealing to a wider audience with less technical content then it will lose what makes it worthwhile. There are already numerous audio forums with minimal technical content.
 

DWPress

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
963
Likes
1,371
Location
MI
My OP for this thread though is an example of one challenge. The established FR graph is misleading but not likely we are going to get an industry committee to agree on the more realistic representation.
Exactly! 5 years ago I looked at many of the graphs and measurements available with little or incomplete understanding of what I was looking at. It's only with time and self practice that many of these things start making any sense and you find ways to use available tools with repeatability and reliability. The discussions here on ASR (other places too) can quickly derail with speculation or alternative methods of achieving similar goals.

As for your OP, looks garish until you look at the scale (and understand its meaning) - if my speakers measured +/- 1dB I'd be quite happy.

No placebo for not putting in the work and learning. Not sure how to convey this or offer more meaningful dialogue about a DUT without the basic understanding of how equipment, speakers and rooms interact and how these graphs could potentially affect any of it.

I applaud your efforts though!
 

kimmosto

Active Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
213
Likes
498
The Olive scoring done by @MZKM and others is value add by ASR membership. As such, Amir lets it be. Maybe by prioritizing and refining what measures are most important, the index could be revamped to be used for a comparison tool? Given the scope, sounds like another topic thread. ;)
"Controlled listening test" can mean anything so result does not necessary apply to individual...anybody. We don't know and can't easily find out all details about tests: questions, SPL, environment/acoustics, setup, equipment, listened music/signal i.e. possibilities to hear certain features at all. It's just faith until further investigation. Ranking whole speaker by specifying target/ideal for few features, measuring differences and weighting result by importance will remain questionable regardless how objective we want to be. Instructions are okay of course.

As we have already seen, every member on ASR is the best specialist to interpret measurements so I would leave all judgements to readers. At least I don't accept that Toole, Olive, amirm or anybody else limit what very very basic and obviously audible features should not be measured as irrelevant. We're not that stupid or children.

One more funny feature in preference rating. Vented box (blue) is optimized by PR using single Linkwitz-Transform stage with max. 20 dB gain. Weight of LFX is high and LFQ is missing in PR equation 9 so speaker is ruined (red). Average hifi-human would notice that by eyes and ears but PR does not. Intelligence of science at its best.
1641763184096.png
 
Top Bottom