If all speakers measure flat, what is the point of auditioning?

[Mr. Widget]

What I was talking about above is the converse: I might also have ended up feeling satisfied with one of the other setups I named, and those would have cost slightly less.

I see your point and agree with you. My guess is you probably would have been happy/satisfied with another otherwise excellent speaker.

That said, I do not think that is universal. It certainly is not true for me.

 

[MattHooper]

I got my Genelec 8351b's without ever having heard them. Best speakers I've ever had, by a wide margin.

I think when it comes to actives with built-in DSP, it's not too difficult to buy based solely on properly done measurements. If the Klippel looks good and the directivity is good (i.e. no major errors and therefore easily EQ'd), then it's really just about low-frequency extension, SPL capability, distortion vs SPL, self-noise (less important for conventional mid/far-field hi-fi style listening), and of course price and looks.

With that said, I think where extensive listening could have helped me is that I might have felt that something like Neuman 310's with external DSP, or perhaps KEF LS60's, or maybe Sointuva AWG's with a Purifi amp and external DSP, could have given me more or less equally good performance for less money.

But I wouldn't trust my listening comparisons unless I could get all that stuff into my own listening space, all at the same time, and live with all four setups, properly calibrated, for at least a couple of weeks. Totally impractical, and probably impossible - and even then I would have confidence but not certainty in my listening impressions.

Time is money too, and if we're fortunate enough financially to be able to consider $6k-$8.5k setups like these, it's not always worth the time, physical hauling, hassle, and stress to go to extraordinary lengths to see if you can get closer to $6k than to $8.5k.

I got free overnight shipping on the 8351b's, they fit on stands I already had, GLM was dead easy to use, and they were dialed in after a single GLM measurement calibration, 1-2 slight tweaks of the target curve, and 20 minutes spent experimenting with slight differences in toe-in/toe-out angle. That time and aggravation saved/avoided is very valuable to me, and if these speakers last 10-15 years, the possibility that I paid $2k more than maybe I had to for the equivalent sound I'm getting, will work out to about 25-50 cents a day. I can live with that, to say the least.

I’m sure those Genelec would whip the butts of many speakers I’ve had in my room, in various ways.

Would you mind giving a little more detail as to what you like about their sound and performance versus other speakers you owned?

 

[tmtomh]

I’m sure those Genelec would whip the butts of many speakers I’ve had in my room, in various ways.

Would you mind giving a little more detail as to what you like about their sound and performance versus other speakers you owned?

Sure! Most of what I'd say in that regard I wrote a month or two ago in the 8351b review thread discussion:

There were two relevant prior setups. One was a pair of B&W 705s with a Purifi-based amp and a graphic EQ used to roughly dial in room EQ (and dial out the 705s' treble peak). The other was a pair of Infinity Kappa 9s with the same Purifi amp and with a MiniDSP SHD doing room correction through Dirac. [EDIT: previously to both of those I had a variety of similar B&W floorstanders and stand mounts; and in 2019 I briefly owned a pair of KEF LS50s, which I didn't care for.]

Both of these setups produced a strong, clear phantom center. I found the Kappas much fiddlier to deal with and so in some configurations I'd say their center was not quite as strong as the 705s, while in other configurations it was equally strong, and in other configurations it was a little stronger. But in general it was strong and clear.

The Kappas produced noticeably better soundstage depth than the 705s. And of course more and better bass: 2x 12" woofers per speaker doing only bass frequencies vs 1x 6.5" ported midwoofer going all the way up past 2kHz on the 705s. I was amazed at how much bass the 705s could put out given what they had to work with - although when listening to the Kappas and now with the Genelecs I realize how much of the 705's bass beefiness was just low-order harmonic distortion.

The Kappas also produced notably taller soundstage height than the 705s: They're 5 feet tall and the baffles lean back slightly, meaning that all the drivers that cover the directional frequencies are either mounted above seated listening height, or have an acoustic center that's above listening height by the time it reaches your chair (because the leaning baffle tilts the drivers up slightly).

As for soundstage width, for the most part I surprisingly found both speakers to be similar, with the perceived L-R image rarely seeming to extend beyond the outer edge of the speaker.

In my perception, the Genelecs produce a noticeably sharper, tighter phantom center; wider soundstage; deeper soundstage than the 705s and more consistent soundstage depth than the Kappas; far more, cleaner, and more linear bass than the 705s; different but equally good bass to the Kappas; and nearly as good soundstage height as the Kappas.

So what I really love about the 8351b's sound is that they are so tight, precise, and neutral:

- The soundstage imaging is incredibly precise and it kind of feels "taut," as in, so tight and precise that I have a hard time imagining how it could feel any more so than it does. I was always impressed and pleased by how good the imaging of my 705s was; but the Genelecs are on a whole other level in my experience.

- Many recordings that I'm very familiar with now have an impactful kick-drum impact around the typical 50Hz kick-drum frequency, which the 705s never had and which the Kappas were fully capable of reproducing but to my ears surprisingly inconsistent in actually delivering. When they were good, the Kappas were very good indeed and could move a tremendous amount of air from those bass drivers. But it's only with the Genelecs that I occasionally am startled because I think I'm hearing a low-frequency sound from something nearby in the real world, but then I realize it's some deep bass notes in the recording, which I'd never heard before with any other setup.

- Conversely, there were resonant/lingering bass notes in many recordings with previous speakers that I had grown so used to that I hardly even noticed them, and those standing waves are now missing with the Genelecs - in other words the perceived decay time of bass notes is much more uniform across the various bass frequencies that a particular song or album might cover. (The Kappas were very good in this regard as well. The 705s, in retrospect, were not.)

- And for the first time with any system I've owned, there are recordings where I get a very clear perception of sounds coming from well outside, and in some cases outside and behind, one or both of the speakers. (Even with the Kappas I found the edges of the soundstage width seemed to cling stubbornly to the outside edges of the speakers at best. They did have nice soundstage depth though.) If the "behind the speakers and off to the side" sound is sustained in a song - like if it comes from an instrument in the mix and is not just a momentary sound effect or something - I know rationally that it's just that the instrument is panned hard to one side, lower in volume than other parts of the mix, and perhaps treated with some reverb - but the illusion remains quite convincing despite that knowledge.

Finally - and this might sound weird - the aspect that gives me the most confidence that the above four characteristics are actual manifestations of the speakers' design and measured performance is that these perceptions do not occur with all recordings and don't sound the same with all recordings. There are subtle timbral differences between singers (or sometimes between the same singer recorded on two different albums) that I never noticed before. I often get a very strong feeling that I can hear the frequency response and/or distortion characteristics of the microphone used to capture the vocals on a recording, because vocals on other recordings sound cleaner or have a different tonal balance. (Even if I can't really "hear in to the mic," the point is that these subtle differences in vocal sound quality jump out at me far beyond what they ever did before.) And that wider-than-the-speakers effect is not the default soundstage width - it's something that I experience only with some recordings, because of course only some recordings contain the sonic cues to produce that perception.

So from the emergence of these kinds of differences among various recordings, which I never heard or really noticed before, I conclude that the precision and detail of the Genelecs - in a word, their fidelity - represents a significant improvement upon my past setups.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Can you shop solely from measurements alone?​

Well. You can. But you shouldn't (if possible).

I think it's pretty safe to conclude from various threads on ASR, that measurements do not show all. E.G. discussions about "slam" and "sound stage".
As another point of which you can not in any reasonable way predict, is how the speakers will sound IN YOUR ROOM IR to exciting of room modes and reflections.
It is IMO utterly wrong to think you know how speakers will sound in your room from measurements alone. They can give you an idea but will not show all.

Below is a compilation of relevant links to support my point-->

Creating bass weight and impact?

I was recently at a live concert in a large venue and, as I often do in this situation, noticed the weight and impact of the bass notes. They hit with a physical energy you can feel and which makes live music so exciting. Note I'm not saying the notes are super low, just powerful My home...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Dry bass

For some time now, I have a bass problem. The bass does not sound impactful or physical, it's just ... there. For context, I have 4x 12" Rythmik sub drivers built into two subwoofers, crossed over at 80Hz, with DSP provided by Acourate. If I turn the subs louder, it sounds unbalanced and there...

www.audiosciencereview.com

What makes big speakers sound "big"and smaller ones sound "small"?

Sorry for the stupid question but Bigger speakers also sound bigger to me than smaller ones even at the same volume. I've been told this is not correct and impossible but i still feel that way, and also other people do because I read the cliche of "these speaekrs sound much bigger than they...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Have Slim Floorstanding Speakers "Had Their Day?"

Obviously there's a lot more nuance than is implied in my sort of click-baitish title (had to keep it short), but... The question was partially inspired by my listening to this podcast: Why BIGGER loudspeakers are BETTER...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Big subs vs Small subs

So I was considering the pros and cons of large vs small subwoofers. Clearly if you need to reproduce 10hz at 100+ db you need a large driver, something from JTR, Funk etc. But what if you're producing 20 hz at 90db? Does a large driver, say 18" sound different than a small driver, say 12"...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Audio Science Pal]

If all speakers measure flat, what is the point of auditioning?​

My hearing response (and probably that of some other people) is not flat. Therefore, some speakers might "sound better" than others.

 

[tmtomh]

If all speakers measure flat, what is the point of auditioning?​

My hearing response (and probably that of some other people) is not flat. Therefore, some speakers might "sound better" than others.

That might be true, but only if you ignore the "if all speakers measure flat" part of the original question.

 

[Audio Science Pal]

That might be true, but only if you ignore the "if all speakers measure flat" part of the original question.

Yes, I should have worded my post differently, since there are no speakers that measure flat. My thoughts at that moment were focused on "what is the point of auditioning".

 

[Digital_Thor]

Well....exactly. I thought there was sufficient context to understand that I was poking fun.

Sorry about that. Getting tricky sometimes, to figure out whether people really believe something or just poking fun, especially with no facial expression and tone

 

[sigbergaudio]

Right! Someone said "brutally flat" which is misleading, suggesting that's some kind of a brutal filter on top of the music, you wouldn't say a speaker is brutally distortion free, or a screen brutally color accurate. Neutral speakers doesn't make music sound good or bad, they're just showing the material as is

Well, it could be misleading, but not necessarily. Depending on how it's done, on-axis frequency response can be "hammered flat" with DSP in a way that does not sound good. Either because you're doing it at the expense of off-axis response, and/or by using so hard filtering that it results in audible artifacts.

 

[Deleted member 48726]

Well, it could be misleading, but not necessarily. Depending on how it's done, on-axis frequency response can be "hammered flat" with DSP in a way that does not sound good. Either because you're doing it at the expense of off-axis response, and/or by using so hard filtering that it results in audible artifacts.

Having not heard those "audible artifacts" in real life is it pre-ringing you're talking about? I have heard that in files. I think from a user here on ASR once.
Despite having experimented extensively with DSP I haven't heard it in my system(s) but It would be nice to know exactly what to listen for? (How to provoke it)

 

[sigbergaudio]

Having not heard those "audible artifacts" in real life is it pre-ringing you're talking about? I have heard that in files. I think from a user here on ASR once.
Despite having experimented extensively with DSP I haven't heard it in my system(s) but It would be nice to know exactly what to listen for? (How to provoke it)

High Q IIR filters at higher frequencies is one way. Not necessarily audible with a single filter, but extensive use end up with a certain artificial sounding character to the sound, in lack of a better way of describing it. As mentioned it is also relatively common to see things that look "wrong" on-axis actually even out if you also include off-axis response. So focusing too hard on the on-axis response results in the wrong energy level at the affected frequencies at the listening position, despite looking good on-axis.

 

[nygafre]

I say yes to shopping from measurements alone, as this proved to be a huge step forward in my whole approach to speakers and listening experience. But I will add to that preferably when coupled with a certain experience/practical understanding of the different characteristics of the speaker(s). E.g. having heard a wide vs flat directivity. It was only when I changed to narrower speakers I really ‘understood’ how it impacted the listening experience compared to my previous wide dispersion speakers.

Still, I would probably want to hear the speakers before actually buying it if having the chance, to rule out anything obvious. And to judge the aestethics/dimensions irl.

 

[JiiPee]

In a perfect world, One should always listen the speakers in one's own room before the purchase, but in practice, this is often simply not possible. In these cases, having access to properly done measurements and understanding what their results mean in practice at least gives a reasonable basis for an educated guess regarding what one can expect.

It is extremely rare - virtually nonexistent - case , that two different speakers measure exactly the same. Even when it comes to on-axis frequency response. And even if they would be very closely matched in this regard, their off-axis behavior will be different, unless the speakers are copies of each other.

Also, there are other factors besides the frequency response. For example, many speakers have THD that is easily several times higher than that of very mundanely performing amplifier. I sometimes wonder why people who are absolutely anal when it comes to amplifier's THD, don't bother at all about the distortion profile of their speakers...

 

[holdingpants01]

Well, it could be misleading, but not necessarily. Depending on how it's done, on-axis frequency response can be "hammered flat" with DSP in a way that does not sound good. Either because you're doing it at the expense of off-axis response, and/or by using so hard filtering that it results in audible artifacts.

Obviously, but can you name examples of such monitors besides DIY or super cheap attempts?

 

[killdozzer]

It's not as easy as that. For example, you can have a flat measuring speaker going down to, let's say 37Hz and one that goes down to 55. They're both flat, but you're not getting the same result in your room. The room is never flat and affects the sound in a big, big way.

But even before that, no speaker is ideally flat. You still should do both. See that it performs well and then is it suitable to your specific conditions.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Two speakers that have equal response in all axes will sound the same, no matter the listening environment.

Two speakers that have equal response on-axis, may sound substantially different in your room, due to response differences off-axis.

Really? So impulse response, clarity, power handling and low distortion don’t matter?

With DSP and room treatments flat frequency response above the Schroeder frequency is not that hard to achieve.

 

[staticV3]

Really? So impulse response, clarity, power handling and low distortion don’t matter?

Said who?

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Said who?

Maybe I misunderstood you when you wrote “Two speakers that have equal response in all axes will sound the same, no matter the listening environment.”

That seems to exclude impulse response, clarity, power handling and low distortion.

 

[staticV3]

Maybe I misunderstood you when you wrote “Two speakers that have equal response in all axes will sound the same, no matter the listening environment.”

That seems to exclude impulse response, clarity, power handling and low distortion.

It doesn't.

Response is a collective term, including amplitude, phase, distortion, power, and more.

 

[prestigetone]

Well, it could be misleading, but not necessarily. Depending on how it's done, on-axis frequency response can be "hammered flat" with DSP in a way that does not sound good. Either because you're doing it at the expense of off-axis response, and/or by using so hard filtering that it results in audible artifacts.

Can extreme DSP mess with the drivers in a bad way? Meaning it taxes them to a point where they don't function at their best