Lack of high-end speaker reviews

[Pearljam5000]

That seems a little harsh. The point of this site is mainly to measure speakers and avoid subjective reviews ("I heard them, the sound steering thing really happens/doesn't"). Maybe "mystery" is a little too internet-y of a word, but the point is clear- we need data on whether they really work or not.

That's OK
I'm used to harsh reactions around here , not they I care anymore
But thanks anyways

 

[bodhi]

That's OK
I'm used to harsh reactions around here , not they I care anymore
But thanks anyways

Harsh reactions? There is nothing wrong having an opinion, but the facts remain the same. 8381 is a speaker that produces sound based basically on the same principles as other speakers and it's performance can be measured. Yes, it is one of the best speakers in the world. Yes, it can put out impressive amount of SPL and can handle huge rooms. Still, if you think it's something completely different than for example 8361 in typical listening situation then I just think you are not thinking completely straight.

Same thing with Magico speakers, half a mil turntables, beryllium tweeters, aluminum cabinets, Wilson subwoofers, Neumann sounding completely different than Genelc and the list just goes on and on and on. You can measure these things, determine if they fit specific use case and that's the most of the story right there. If you want to sprinkle some magic dust on top of that you are welcome.

 

[MattHooper]

Again, this is where it's crucial to be honest with yourself in identifying your goals around audio reproduction. If you care about maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy to the source because ultimately you believe that this is the first critical step in providing you with speaker satisfaction purely from a sonic standpoint

Note I've bolded your use of the term "purely from a SONIC standpoint."

Everything I'm discussing is tied in to what one means by that. Would you mean from the "sonic standpoint" of the objective facts, measurable, about the sound waves? Or from the "sonic standpoint" in terms of what a listener will actually hear - that is, their perception of the sound. There are times when we hear things that aren't there in the sound waves, and times when we can't hear what IS there in the sound waves. Unless it's clarified what you mean by "purely from a sonic standpoint" the issue is not addressed.


So when you write of an audiophile selecting a speaker for satisfaction purely from a sonic standpoint, do you mean:

1. Caring only about the actual sonic facts in regard to the sound waves, established by measurements and blind testing?

Or

2. Caring about how the sound as you will actually perceive it when using the speakers?


It's quite clear that most here approach speaker measurements and blind test studies as relevant to #2. That is, we only really care about the "purely sonic" performance of a speaker, established in measurements and blind test studies, insofar as one can expect to perceive that performance when we buy that speaker, listening in sighted conditions. Otherwise, we are right back to the question of "why care about #1 as a guide to buying speakers?" Why care about "accuracy" in a speaker if you will not "accurately perceive" that accuracy in the real use case condition of the speaker?

(as blind studies have demonstrated is indeed the case for most listeners), you then need to be aware of your own preconceptions and biases and work to mitigate them when auditioning.

The best way to mitigate our biases will be blind testing. But if you can't do that, how do you mitigate your biases in sighted listening?

We return yet again to being honest with yourself. Outside of the more terribly engineered examples, a speaker that looks amazing tends also to sound pretty amazing, at least at first.

Does this mean that "at first" visual bias will corrupt our perception, but this fades and then our perception of the sound, in sighted conditions, becomes more accurate over time?

Cheers!

 

[Newman]

Matt’s battling on multiple fronts…

 

[Shiva]

Speaking of high end speakers, just landed on this vid from the Sound Sommeliers yesterday and it sounded quite nice on my Senn HD580’s. Headphones if you got ‘em.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Why care about "accuracy" in a speaker if you will not "accurately perceive" that accuracy in the real use case condition of the speaker?

The best way to mitigate our biases will be blind testing. But if you can't do that, how do you mitigate your biases in sighted listening?

Can you make the reverse case? If you can somewhat accurately perceive a speaker's character, what would be the advantage to accept speakers known to be less accurate? Or if you cannot what is the advantage to accept speakers known to be less accurate? I cannot see a plus in either case. I suppose it is something like DACs. Some cheap ones have distortion and noise at -120 db where it cannot matter. They probably sound no different than one where noise is -100 db and distortion -80 db. But if you can build one for cheap why not?

Had you given me the scenario about mitigating sighted bias, without the option of blinding, my first thought would be to have two sets of speakers one could switch between quickly. The first fly in the ointment would be they are in different positions. Harman's switcher takes care of that. Yet in that case bias from sight and reputation is quite strong. That was surprising to me when I first read about it. I think that is why like Kal and others who have done a session at Harman describe how enlightening/informative the experience is.

My next thought would be use pink noise to compare. That makes FR differences stand out more starkly than music. One might find it hard to choose which is better with pink noise, but it is easier to hear when one is different. Then moderate speed sweeps can find resonances which we know is a negative. I'd feel pretty good about that working, but I would have felt good about a quick switching comparison in the above paragraph. Results seem to indicate that confidence was misplaced. Next I might use that chink-chink-chink shaker sound that pans back and forth to elicit directional issues. If it doesn't pan smoothly you can hear it more easily than with music. I think some special signals like this are needed for sighted evaluation. In light of what is known one would be foolish to put confidence in them if they weren't corroborated by blind testing. Suppose we could come up with a handful of artificial signals known to work with decent accuracy sighted. Would magazine reviewers use that? It won't read nearly as well as exhilarated wonders described by current reviewers. Where veils are lifted, new levels of detail unraveled and wonders of space unfurled.

 

[cavedriver]

Harsh reactions? There is nothing wrong having an opinion, but the facts remain the same. 8381 is a speaker that produces sound based basically on the same principles as other speakers and it's performance can be measured. Yes, it is one of the best speakers in the world. Yes, it can put out impressive amount of SPL and can handle huge rooms. Still, if you think it's something completely different than for example 8361 in typical listening situation then I just think you are not thinking completely straight.

Same thing with Magico speakers, half a mil turntables, beryllium tweeters, aluminum cabinets, Wilson subwoofers, Neumann sounding completely different than Genelc and the list just goes on and on and on. You can measure these things, determine if they fit specific use case and that's the most of the story right there. If you want to sprinkle some magic dust on top of that you are welcome.

I don't think you've made any effort to follow the point that was being made. The question was whether the extra drivers on the 8381 are there simply to meet target max SPL or if there are instead 4 of them so that they can adjust the directivity of the speaker in two axes to tailor the output to the room response behavior. Re-reading Genelec's adspeak on the speaker it would seem to confirm that, no, there is no intent to use those four drivers to shape the directivity of the speaker and it's all simply to arrive at a louder point source. I have no idea what the rest of your message was about because I was not proposing anything magical and it's frankly tiresome to get on a forum and get talked down to.

 

[MattHooper]

Can you make the reverse case? If you can somewhat accurately perceive a speaker's character, what would be the advantage to accept speakers known to be less accurate?

Then it's down to what you like better. If I am listening to two different speakers and one has a very slight smile response, that I'm accurately-enough-perceiving, if I like that sound better, the advantage goes to that speaker. Of course there's a separate issue of "well buy the neutral speaker and eq it like the other one" but that's not exactly the point at hand. We can talk about a speaker that is not quite accurate due to design decisions, which are not directly replicable merely with EQ as well. (E.g. Omnis, etc).

Or if you cannot what is the advantage to accept speakers known to be less accurate?

If you can't accurately perceive the difference between the accurate and less accurate speaker, then one could decide it just comes down to the aesthetics, or any number of non-sonic factors (including that you may appreciate the engineering involved in making one speaker over another). And/or you just go on whatever produces the most pleasing sonic impression in the sighted conditions.

This is of course strictly looking at the options you gave me.

My position is that, in a practical sense, in many cases, it's justifiable to go with the idea one is really able to detect some relevant sonic differences between some loudspeakers, in sighted conditions. This does not ignore the issue of sighted bias; it takes it as a possible variable, and so it's a tentative conclusion open to being wrong. We employ such practical conclusions all day long, in the face of not having scientific levels of confidence for everything we do.

I mean, one really does have to answer the question: Was Harman Kardon engaged in irrational activity in all their blind testing and measuring? If the measurements weren't going to predict, or track with impressions in sighted conditions to any relevant degree, what possible motive could they have had in depending on all that blind testing to design speakers meant for sighted listening conditions?

I cannot see a plus in either case. I suppose it is something like DACs. Some cheap ones have distortion and noise at -120 db where it cannot matter. They probably sound no different than one where noise is -100 db and distortion -80 db. But if you can build one for cheap why not?

Agreed. One reason I have a Benchmark preamp when I could have bought something cheaper that would be equally transparent to my ear, is not just the features I needed, but I enjoy the idea of how well engineered it is, how well it measures. I think others on this site can get similar pleasure out of gear they know measures well, even if it is "more than they need."

However, as I've pointed out: the discussion of loudspeakers does not exactly mirror those concerns. It's very clear that both in terms of the speaker reviews, and the discussions of speaker measurements, including those criteria arrived at from blinded studies, that people take those to be somewhat predictive of what they will actually perceive when they purchase the speaker for use at home. Pointing out some awful resonance or peak isn't just greeted with some academic detachment, but it's presumed this will often lead to "bad sound" in the actual use case, sighted listening. As I said, this site presumes that the measurements and blind listening studies are relevant to recommendations for speakers in sighted listening. That really should be explicable, and I don't see how it's explicable if not for the assumption that sighted listening, while clearly susceptible to bias effects, will be reliable enough to so that we'll perceive the character of a speaker, as described in the measurements. Just like our sight is buffeted by bias effects, but nonetheless manages to be useful.

Had you given me the scenario about mitigating sighted bias, without the option of blinding, my first thought would be to have two sets of speakers one could switch between quickly. The first fly in the ointment would be they are in different positions. Harman's switcher takes care of that. Yet in that case bias from sight and reputation is quite strong. That was surprising to me when I first read about it. I think that is why like Kal and others who have done a session at Harman describe how enlightening/informative the experience is.

My next thought would be use pink noise to compare. That makes FR differences stand out more starkly than music. One might find it hard to choose which is better with pink noise, but it is easier to hear when one is different. Then moderate speed sweeps can find resonances which we know is a negative. I'd feel pretty good about that working, but I would have felt good about a quick switching comparison in the above paragraph. Results seem to indicate that confidence was misplaced. Next I might use that chink-chink-chink shaker sound that pans back and forth to elicit directional issues. If it doesn't pan smoothly you can hear it more easily than with music. I think some special signals like this are needed for sighted evaluation. In light of what is known one would be foolish to put confidence in them if they weren't corroborated by blind testing. Suppose we could come up with a handful of artificial signals known to work with decent accuracy sighted. Would magazine reviewers use that? It won't read nearly as well as exhilarated wonders described by current reviewers. Where veils are lifted, new levels of detail unraveled and wonders of space unfurled.

All interesting ideas for trying to raise some confidence levels in sighted listening.

I would disagree with the idea that is it foolish, or at least always foolish, to conclude anything about the sound of loudspeakers outside of rigorous scientific test protocols.
It would be foolish if you are looking for a scientific level of confidence not to control for sighted bias. But that doesn't mean it would be foolish in informal, everyday, practical settings to come to some conclusions. I've had my sighted impressions confirmed by measurements often enough (e.g. hearing a speaker, forming an impression of it's frequency response or other characteristics, and later seeing measurements at Stereophile or Soundstage etc, which match those) to have some level of confidence. I'm far from infallible of course, but I think a practical application of sighted listening can be justified until one has more rigorous data. (If you watch Erin's Audio corner, you'll see that he is very good at identifying speaker characteristics, frequency response issues etc, which show up in the measurements after he listens, which suggests that sighted listening is not across the board unreliable).

 

[Duke]

I would disagree with the idea that is it foolish, or at least always foolish, to conclude anything about the sound of loudspeakers outside of rigorous scientific test protocols.
It would be foolish if you are looking for a scientific level of confidence not to control for sighted bias. But that doesn't mean it would be foolish in informal, everyday, practical settings to come to some conclusions. I've had my sighted impressions confirmed by measurements often enough (e.g. hearing a speaker, forming an impression of it's frequency response or other characteristics, and later seeing measurements at Stereophile or Soundstage etc, which match those) to have some level of confidence. I'm far from infallible of course, but I think a practical application of sighted listening can be justified until one has more rigorous data. (If you watch Erin's Audio corner, you'll see that he is very good at identifying speaker characteristics, frequency response issues etc, which show up in the measurements after he listens, which suggests that sighted listening is not across the board unreliable).

If one must wait for high-confidence data before forming an opinion on a particular pair of speakers one has auditioned, there is a fairly high probability that one will die of old age first.

 

[MattHooper]

If one must wait for high-confidence data before forming an opinion on a particular pair of speakers one has auditioned, there is a fairly high probability that one will die of old age first.

Yup. It ain't even coming for most of the speakers available.

One could always just limit their choices to those speakers that have Klippel data. But, given the variety of interesting speakers out there, a lot of us prefer not to limit our choices to that degree. And so informal sighted listening, at dealers, or wherever, will have to suffice. And..it often does. It's how I've ended up with very enjoyable loudspeakers.

 

[kemmler3D]

Speaking of high end speakers, just landed on this vid from the Sound Sommeliers yesterday and it sounded quite nice on my Senn HD580’s. Headphones if you got ‘em.

The day I listen to speaker demos over youtube over headphones will be the day I start licking the screen to see what the pizza in the ad tastes like.

 

[Axo1989]

Speaking of high end speakers, just landed on this vid from the Sound Sommeliers yesterday and it sounded quite nice on my Senn HD580’s. Headphones if you got ‘em.

Pink Panther theme eh? Clearly angling for the ASR audience.

 

[Duke]

Yup. It ain't even coming for most of the speakers available.

One could always just limit their choices to those speakers that have Klippel data. But, given the variety of interesting speakers out there, a lot of us prefer not to limit our choices to that degree. And so informal sighted listening, at dealers, or wherever, will have to suffice. And..it often does. It's how I've ended up with very enjoyable loudspeakers.

Don't tell anybody, but the most expensive speaker purchase (by far!) I made as a civilian was of a speaker I had neither seen nor heard, nor encountered any measurements of. I armchair-analyzed what I thought it would do, asked the manufacturer one technical question, and wrote out a check. Best purchase I ever made.

 

[kemmler3D]

Don't tell anybody, but the most expensive speaker purchase (by far!) I made as a civilian was of a speaker I had neither seen nor heard, nor encountered any measurements of. I armchair-analyzed what I thought it would do, asked the manufacturer one technical question, and wrote out a check. Best purchase I ever made.

To be fair, you are better-equipped than most to eyeball a speaker and judge how it will perform...

 

[Blumlein 88]

snip.......... I've had my sighted impressions confirmed by measurements often enough (e.g. hearing a speaker, forming an impression of it's frequency response or other characteristics, and later seeing measurements at Stereophile or Soundstage etc, which match those) to have some level of confidence. I'm far from infallible of course, but I think a practical application of sighted listening can be justified until one has more rigorous data. (If you watch Erin's Audio corner, you'll see that he is very good at identifying speaker characteristics, frequency response issues etc, which show up in the measurements after he listens, which suggests that sighted listening is not across the board unreliable).

See, I know what this feels like. How often do you need to be correct to have some level of confidence? And how correct, sort of in the right direction, or very specifically correct? 50% correct in the general direction is enough almost everyone feels highly confident of such things, me included. Most people feel highly confident if correct generally 30% of the time, also me included. You remember those, you are reinforced psychologically when it occurs, and discount the others. I don't know what to do about that.

If one is right slightly more than wrong it can lead you in the right direction. Evolution is quite effective, but it is slow and in some sense inefficient, but inexorably works given enough time.

One could always just limit their choices to those speakers that have Klippel data. But, given the variety of interesting speakers out there, a lot of us prefer not to limit our choices to that degree. And so informal sighted listening, at dealers, or wherever, will have to suffice. And..it often does. It's how I've ended up with very enjoyable loudspeakers.

The bolded part is pretty much where I am now. Yes, you might find some interesting speakers and if that is your bag then you can have some fun. As for informal listening wherever sufficing, yes it often does, and it often does not. If you don't have any other choice it will have to do of necessity. I get it, but like with amps, which really were an issue with Soundlabs, I no longer bother. Get the power, the low output impedance and roll with it. Or if it is a part of the hobby you enjoy then you don't want to do it that way. Maybe it is getting older, but I don't have the attraction to that anymore. I think it is more learning that it is not needed and there are better simpler ways toward the goal than it is age.

By choosing among speakers designed using the CEA 2034 measurement standard everything is easier. Not perfect, but easier. Maybe something won't play loud enough for your situation, or maybe it lacks enough low end. And even within that standard there are differences in balance (of course these speakers respond better to a little EQ touch up). As a group such designs are much easier to get working well in most rooms. The whole gear fetish is not as strong in me personally anymore. Not when I can get something up, working well, and spend time listening to music more.

I would say it is more about the performance than the journey and in the past the journey was important to me. I don't denigrate that, but even if you enjoy the journey the subjectivist press has done damage to the industry by promoting journeys which are about separating customers from their money as much as anything. About creating a more or less permanent turmoil going in circles. That is not necessary anymore.

 

[bodhi]

I have no idea what the rest of your message was about because I was not proposing anything magical and it's frankly tiresome to get on a forum and get talked down to.

That's right, you don't understand the context and I wasn't replying to you.

 

[cavedriver]

That's right, you don't understand the context and I wasn't replying to you.

Well, really you were effectively, read back. so what is the context other than Pearljam's comment?

 

[Todd68]

Can one tell from measurements the speakers ability to play the dynamics of music, the detail and resolution of the midrange and highs, and ability to portray an accurate convincing soundstage and imaging? I ask because these are the three main qualities that I think make a great speaker, other than balanced tonal qualities.

I have a pair of line arrays that are very dynamic compared to other speakers I own but lose out in other ways.

 

[Newman]

One could always just limit their choices to those speakers that have Klippel data. But, given the variety of interesting speakers out there, a lot of us prefer not to limit our choices to that degree. And so informal sighted listening, at dealers, or wherever, will have to suffice. And..it often does. It's how I've ended up with very enjoyable loudspeakers.
The bolded part is pretty much where I am now. ...
By choosing among speakers designed using the CEA 2034 measurement standard everything is easier. Not perfect, but easier. ...
I would say it is more about the performance than the journey....

Yes, and that is very consistent with what I was saying yesterday, in the last few paragraphs here. Of course, He Who Must Deny Inconvenient Truths didn't take it well, and went into one of his spirals (borrowed from deniers of evolution) of You Haven't Answered Every Question Imaginable Yet, So It Can't Be Right. Yawn.

 

[audiofooled]

The day I listen to speaker demos over youtube over headphones will be the day I start licking the screen to see what the pizza in the ad tastes like.

The fun part being that the pizza with just the dough and one ingredient would be less then visually appealing. So many speakers can sound good reproducing just a couple of instruments and no vocals.