Interview about Measurements with Pearl Sibelius Speaker Designer

[tuga]

Buying a speaker that measures well and sticking it in a good acoustic is still the best route to long-term satisfaction with the sound quality across all types of programme.

You cannot support that with evidence.
I agree that a speaker which measures well is more likely to be more accurate but not with the long-term satisfaction. The choice is a matter of preference. Most non-audiophiles don't really care that much about sound quality and many if not most audiophiles enjoy the change and the box-swapping...

 

[Mart68]

You cannot support that with evidence.
I agree that a speaker which measures well is more likely to be more accurate but not with the long-term satisfaction. The choice is a matter of preference. Most non-audiophiles don't really care that much about sound quality and many if not most audiophiles enjoy the change and the box-swapping...

you're right, it's just an observation made from 30 odd years of experience, the only back up is the research done on speaker preference which, at least to an extent, supports my observation. Translating the research environment to real world is never going to be an exact process so I think such observations do have some value.

I see tweaking and box-swapping as an entirely different hobby, totally divorced from the pursuit of high fidelity, or enjoying listening to music.

 

[tuga]

I see tweaking and box-swapping as an entirely different hobby, totally divorced from the pursuit of high fidelity, or enjoying listening to music.

Again, that is your opinion and personal preference.
Most music lovers couldn't care less about sound quality, let alone the pursuit of high fidelity.
Some audiophiles, myself included, are interested in the pursuit of high fidelity but others have different ways of approaching the hobby and different requirements for recorded music reproduction. For those, a wide selection of equipment with different 'presentations' is paramount for their enjoyment.
Also, with perhaps the exception of classical music all other genres are not meant to sound like live music which, one could argue, makes the obssessive pursuit of high fidelity a rather pointless exercise...
Regardless of where you stand I am sure you would agree that the ultimate goal is listening enjoyment. As such, criticising different approaches and preferences is an expression of intolerance and lack of understanding. If someone prefers vinyl over digital or euphony over accuracy that is deifintely not wrong.

 

[Mart68]

Again, that is your opinion and personal preference.
Most music lovers couldn't care less about sound quality, let alone the pursuit of high fidelity.
Some audiophiles, myself included, are interested in the pursuit of high fidelity but others have different ways of approaching the hobby and different requirements for recorded music reproduction. For those, a wide selection of equipment with different 'presentations' is paramount for their enjoyment.
Also, with perhaps the exception of classical music all other genres are not meant to sound like live music which, one could argue, makes the obssessive pursuit of high fidelity a rather pointless exercise...
Regardless of where you stand I am sure you would agree that the ultimate goal is listening enjoyment. As such, criticising different approaches and preferences is an expression of intolerance and lack of understanding. If someone prefers vinyl over digital or euphony over accuracy that is deifintely not wrong.

The hobby of hi-fidelity is about fidelity to the recorded signal not to some notional live performance. It is certainly not a pointless exercise if the objective is enjoying listening to music as opposed to listening to equipment. The higher the fidelity the more pleasing the sound. This is simple logic - no-one makes a recording and thinks 'This recording's a mess but we'll release it anyway.' (okay, so there may be a handful of exceptions to that).

For those whose hobby is primarily listening to and comparing equipment, tweaking, and marvelling at the differences (real or imagined) in presentation that's fine with me. It's just not the hobby of hi fidelity, it's something different entirely.

 

[tuga]

The hobby of hi-fidelity is about fidelity to the recorded signal not to some notional live performance. It is certainly not a pointless exercise if the objective is enjoying listening to music as opposed to listening to equipment. The higher the fidelity the more pleasing the sound. This is simple logic - no-one makes a recording and thinks 'This recording's a mess but we'll release it anyway.' (okay, so there may be a handful of exceptions to that).

The hobby is about gear and sound quality. Anyone visiting an audio forum regularly is not set on buying a system for life.
For some people higher-fidelity to the signal does not equate to more pleasing sound.

This subjective self-righteousness and pathological criticism of subjectivists is unbecoming to a supposedly science-driven forum. It is ultimatley off-topic.

 

[Mart68]

The hobby is about gear and sound quality. Anyone visiting an audio forum regularly is not set on buying a system for life.
For some people higher-fidelity to the signal does not equate to more pleasing sound.

This subjective self-righteousness and pathological criticism of subjectivists is unbecoming to a supposedly science-driven forum. It is ultimatley off-topic.

You're just reading that into what i am saying, I have not made any such criticism.

 

[tuga]

You're just reading that into what i am saying, I have not made any such criticism.

You say that the hobby is high-fidelity. It is for, for me and many others. But hi-fi is not a universal goal nor path to listening enjoyment.
The following discussing might be worth reading because it includes the comments of a specialist in the field:

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Mart68]

You say that the hobby is high-fidelity. It is for, for me and many others. But hi-fi is not a universal goal nor path to listening enjoyment.
The following discussing might be worth reading because it includes the comments of a specialist in the field:

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

www.audiosciencereview.com

Already read it. See my post (post 10 in this thread) which sums up the inherent problem with chucking out the notion of hi-fidelity as just another preference.

As soon as you introduce colorations you move away from fidelity to the recording. Introduce enough of them and many recordings become so skewed in their reproduction as to become unpleasant to listen to. You begin to concentrate not on the music but on the quality of the recording. Hence the huge market for remastering old recordings (how many Beatles variants now?) when there was nothing wrong with the original.

The industry loves it because satisfied punters don't come back for more. They don't want people to buy a speaker and keep it for decades.

 

[tuga]

Already read it. See my post (post 10 in this thread) which sums up the inherent problem with chucking out the notion of hi-fidelity as just another preference.

As soon as you introduce colorations you move away from fidelity to the recording. Introduce enough of them and many recordings become so skewed in their reproduction as to become unpleasant to listen to. You begin to concentrate not on the music but on the quality of the recording. Hence the huge market for remastering old recordings (how many Beatles variants now?) when there was nothing wrong with the original.

The industry loves it because satisfied punters don't come back for more. They don't want people to buy a speaker and keep it for decades.

My TV has a bunch of image settings presets. Different people will choose different presets. Some will calibrate the setings. Audio playback is not any different from video playback.

For some people 'fidelity to the recorded signal' is a goal, for others it's the 'enhanced presentation' of the recorded material. For the former better measured performance might possibly equate to 'good-sounding'. Might.
Stop reading reviews and you're fine.

 

[thewas]

My TV has a bunch of image settings presets. Different people will choose different presets. Some will calibrate the setings. Audio playback is not any different from video playback.

Agreed, on the other hand it is much easier and more expedient to use a relatively neutral reproduction chain with equalisers and other digital sound effects to match to a specific recording and mood compared to a fixed coloration, if the enjoyment of music is the purpose of the hobby. If fiddling around with devices is though the priority I can fully understand that hobby too, I am also now going offline to fiddle adjust the carburettor of my 48 year old hobby car.

 

[ctrl]

Secondly, if a speaker designer, whom I assume to have some sort of education relating to the subject, finds a speaker that he thinks sounds fantastic but doesn't measure well, he should then conduct a research and find the reason. This is not rocket science nor we are expecting to re-write scientific research. It is plain old engineering. If you cannot find why the sound of a speaker with a dip on its response sounds "fantastic" then there are only two reasons.

1- You are not a good designer/engineer
2- You are not an experienced listener

First, you're responding to a post of mine that's over a year old - respect!

Secondly, my post referred to the following statement:

Quote from video: "Lets say the speaker measure with a big dip problem... by textbook case it is bad... if you measure it close enough there is a big dip, but it sounds great... so what do I do? Do I correct it?"
"... but I'm bring a speaker to market too and this is a question, a dilemma I'm facing, do I ask them to correct it...it sounds fantastic"

So to someone who has not made extensive measurements (at least hor and ver +-90°) of the speaker before the development of the crossover and now in an on-axis measurement without gate finds that the speaker, so measured, has a strong dip.
Whether the LS off-axis measures well, this "someone" can't tell, because the measurements are missing - that was my point.

Can such a loudspeaker sound good? Certainly, if the speaker radiates evenly off-axis (made an example in the following post). An extreme example would be the Earl Geddes speakers, which are not very linear on-axis, but, I assume, nonetheless don't sound bad (because of good off-axis radiation).

Then I wanted to make it clear that extensive measurements prevent us from getting "subjectively lost" in long listening sessions. If, after the twentieth crossover change in a session, we think something is subjectively "very good", the simulation program helps us to evaluate this objectively.
Sometimes it turns out that our brain simply got used to a "strangely tuned" LS during the listening session.

A professional who does this every day will hardly make such a mistake, but it can happen to me as a hobby LS designer. That's why extensive measurements plus a good XO simulation program like VCAD are so important, at least for me.

So, I think we wanted to say something similar, with slight variations in the conversational tone.

 

[GXAlan]

Agreed, on the other hand it is much easier and more expedient to use a relatively neutral reproduction chain with equalisers and other digital sound effects to match to a specific recording and mood compared to a fixed coloration, if the enjoyment of music is the purpose of the hobby. If fiddling around with devices is though the priority I can fully understand that hobby too, I am also now going offline to fiddle adjust the carburettor of my 48 year old hobby car.

As scientific audiophiles, we appreciate the value of EQ/room corrrection. But while it’s easy to talk about a target curve for our primary reference system, the idea that it is “easier and more expedient” to use equalizers and digital sound effects to match a specific recording and mood is not actually true.

It’s the analogy of arguing for a pantry of individual spices to season to taste than it is to buy pre-made seasoning mixes.

It is much easier to have two systems and pick the one that you like depending on the mood. A less extreme example is choosing to listen to a vinyl album versus stream the digital version of that same track. An even less extreme example is choosing to listen to headphones or speakers depending on mood.

There are
1) Objectively accurate gear
2) Tuned-by-ear gear that is not neutral by design and can be confirmed by objective measurements (B&W speakers are the best example)
3) Snake oil products

The problem is when products in #3 try to claim they are #1 or #2.

The challenge is separating #2 and #3.

@Mart68
Try this blind test. You’ll be surprised.

Take the blind challenge! 300B SET vs. Straight Wire with Gain

The challenge: How does a budget 300B SET compare to a "straight wire with gain"? You tell me. It's time to put your ears to the challenge. Poll is open for 14 days. No peeking at the results. Test Setup: I connected a Topping D90, set it at 0 dB volume, to a budget 300B single-ended...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Mart68]

.

@Mart68
Try this blind test. You’ll be surprised.

Take the blind challenge! 300B SET vs. Straight Wire with Gain

The challenge: How does a budget 300B SET compare to a "straight wire with gain"? You tell me. It's time to put your ears to the challenge. Poll is open for 14 days. No peeking at the results. Test Setup: I connected a Topping D90, set it at 0 dB volume, to a budget 300B single-ended...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Regrettably I can't try the blind test since I don't own headphones (hate them) and my system is old school and does not hook up to the computer.

Why would I be surprised? Not been surprised by anything in audio for a long time. Is it because they are hard/impossible to differentiate?

Anyway we are talking loudspeakers in this thread and whether it is a good idea (or if it even matters) to choose one that is a long way from perfect. Personally I think it does matter and that cannot be waved away by saying it's all personal preference.

Audiophiles complain a lot about recording quality. This is because they make bad speaker choices, thinking that choosing speakers is just about personal preference for different colourations - when it isn't.

They think this because that is the line pushed by the magazines and the dealers and so has become pretty much the accepted wisdom.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

This is a normal company that makes very good full-range loudspeakers.
The full-ranges have own specific, yes.
I made a modification of this loudspeaker:

Tapered Wave Tube with Damp-Duct (TWTD) + Pluvia7HD

Driver is mounted 1:1 and damp-duct 1:5. Sound absorbing material is minimal. http://pavane.sakura.ne.jp/driftgranturismo/diyAudio/TWTD-10T-05.jpg http://pavane.sakura.ne.jp/driftgranturismo/diyAudio/TWTD-10T-04.jpg http://pavane.sakura.ne.jp/driftgranturismo/diyAudio/TWTD-10T-11.jpg...

www.diyaudio.com

3.5 cm beech wood, MarkAudio Alpair 7 MS, lot of hand work with Metabo's circular saw and Signal router (beautiful machines), Makita's jigsaw and eccentric sander, lot of experiments with damping, lot of fun and great satisfaction with the result.
I've only taken the very basic measurements and don't intend to measure anything further, they're fine as they are and will outlive any plastic rattles with a DSP inside.

The main thing is that people enjoy the product and it does not harm them. Speakers do no harm (except that heated plastics can emit all sorts of rubbish), so ...

 

[tomtoo]

I didn't like much of what was in there. His logic that he uses colored mics so speakers can be colored made no sense to me. Why would I want to perform double coloration that way? Wouldn't I want a neutral speaker to hear what coloration he added specifically by the use of the specific mic? Why would I want every piece of music colored all over again by the speaker?

And as @ctrl is rightly stating, it doesn't seem like they know about any measurement than on-axis response.

Thx, who mixes up a instrument in the producing line with a speaker in the reproduction line. Is not worth to talk about. A speaker is NOT a instrument.<

 

[tuga]

Agreed, on the other hand it is much easier and more expedient to use a relatively neutral reproduction chain with equalisers and other digital sound effects to match to a specific recording and mood compared to a fixed coloration, if the enjoyment of music is the purpose of the hobby. If fiddling around with devices is though the priority I can fully understand that hobby too, I am also now going offline to fiddle adjust the carburettor of my 48 year old hobby car.

I am not advocating 'coloured' gear but I acknowledge that it's a matter of personal taste.
Charles Hansen could have reduced the level of low-order harmonics in his designs but chose not to.
The goal of domestic reproduction is different from that of pro audio monitoring; it may happen that our preference tends toward accuracy or it may not.

 

[sarumbear]

So to someone who has not made extensive measurements (at least hor and ver +-90°) of the speaker before the development of the crossover and now in an on-axis measurement without gate finds that the speaker, so measured, has a strong dip.
Whether the LS off-axis measures well, this "someone" can't tell, because the measurements are missing - that was my point.

Can such a loudspeaker sound good? Certainly, if the speaker radiates evenly off-axis (made an example in the following post). An extreme example would be the Earl Geddes speakers, which are not very linear on-axis, but, I assume, nonetheless don't sound bad (because of good off-axis radiation).

I don't think anyone see Geddes's speakers not very linear on or off axis.

Then I wanted to make it clear that extensive measurements prevent us from getting "subjectively lost" in long listening sessions. If, after the twentieth crossover change in a session, we think something is subjectively "very good", the simulation program helps us to evaluate this objectively.
Sometimes it turns out that our brain simply got used to a "strangely tuned" LS during the listening session.

A professional who does this every day will hardly make such a mistake, but it can happen to me as a hobby LS designer. That's why extensive measurements plus a good XO simulation program like VCAD are so important, at least for me.

That was my point. A professional person i.e. "a person educated on the subject" as I said will not make such a mistake.

 

[tuga]

For me, it's about listening to music. Some people are gear fetishists, though. I'm not.



Please don't make assumptions. You don't know "anyone" ...... or everyone. I anticipate I'll have my system until I die ..... which some hope will be soon.



Correct. This is a principle of life, not just audio. Some people search for reality, and some people take refuge in lies. Horses for courses.



I fixed the weasel words for ya. After all, a science-driven forum should strive for accuracy ....... shouldn't it?

Jim

p.s. - If you think criticism of subjectivists is unbecoming a SCIENCE-driven forum, then you can wake up to your subjectivist alarm clock, take a shower supplied by your subjectivist water company through your pipes laid by subjectivist plumbers, take your cab built by subjectivist car companies to the subjectivist-built airport, leave a message on your subjectivist-built smartphone (to be transmitted over a subjectivist-built communication network) before you get on your subjectivist-built airplane which lands in fog at another subjectivist-controlled airport where you're taken to a subjectivist hospital to undergo surgery by subjectivist doctors.

Or not ......

My approach is evidence based but I accept that others may have different tastes and expectations.

Your post comes through as childish, I don't think you'll be dying soon...

 

[ctrl]

I don't think anyone see Geddes's speakers not very linear on or off axis.

I don't think your image shows the on-axis FR. It might be 20° or 30° if you look at the frequency response drop above 5kHz.
Here is an independent measurement of the Nathan speaker:

That was my point. A professional person i.e. "a person educated on the subject" as I said will not make such a mistake.

As I said, we agree on that. But even a professional LS designer needs comprehensive measurements, otherwise Amir and Erin would not have to make LS measurements and Mr. Toole would not have to write the fourth edition of his book

 

[sarumbear]

I don't think your image shows the on-axis FR. It might be 20° or 30° if you look at the frequency response drop above 5kHz.
Here is an independent measurement of the Nathan speaker:

Thank you for this.